Landlord fails to carry out maintenance work: court order and deadline

When a landlord fails to arrange necessary maintenance work in an apartment building, the first question is whether a specific order to carry it out can be sought. Within its statutory scope, section 6 of the Austrian Tenancy Act (MRG) allows the court or municipality to order the work within a reasonable period. A sound assessment identifies the work, the person entitled to apply and the competent procedural route.

This article covers applicants, jurisdiction, funding objections, supporting records and the consequences of non-compliance with an order. A refund of amounts paid under a provisional rent increase pursuant to section 18a MRG has separate requirements. The article on refunds under section 18a MRG explains that issue.

An order to perform work does not automatically decide whether a rent reduction or damages are due. Those monetary claims require their own legal basis and an assessment of the specific circumstances.

Which work can be ordered under section 6 MRG?

Section 6(1) MRG covers maintenance and improvement work that the landlord is required to carry out under sections 3 and 4 MRG. First check whether the specific tenancy falls within the scope of the MRG, as defined in section 1 MRG. For maintenance, the work must fall within the duties defined by law. Calling a component defective does not settle that legal question. Describe the affected component, its location and the work that appears necessary. The relevant duties are set out in sections 3, 4 and 6 MRG.

The actual scope matters. A damaged vertical water pipe may raise questions about maintenance of common parts, the affected rented premises and the necessary repair. A separate article discusses those distinctions using a defective water riser as an example.

Section 6(1a) MRG sets an additional threshold where there is a substantial risk to health. An order to remove that risk is available only if it cannot be prevented by other measures that residents can reasonably be expected to accept. This condition applies to that risk scenario, not to every maintenance application.

Who may file the application?

For the categories of maintenance work listed in section 3(2)(1) to (4) and (6) MRG, every main tenant of the building may apply. The municipality where the building is located may also apply within its statutory sphere of competence. A main tenant (Hauptmieter) is the tenant or tenants on the main lease. A subtenant is not automatically entitled to apply in their own name.

For work under section 3(2)(5) and useful improvements under section 4(1) and (2) MRG, section 6(1)(2) requires a majority of the main tenants. The majority is calculated by the number of rental units in the building. The number of residents or a petition with signatures does not replace that statutory calculation. Identify the category of work and the relevant tenancy relationships first.

Where does the procedure start?

Section 6 MRG refers to the court and, through section 39 MRG, to the municipal route. The procedure does not automatically start before a municipality in every case. The correct forum depends on whether the municipality is competent for tenancy matters under section 39. Check the current statutory allocation before filing.

The first forum must be distinguished from a later court challenge to a municipal decision. If such a decision has already been served, the court application is governed by section 40 MRG. The procedure and four-week period are explained separately in the article on challenging a municipal tenancy decision.

Where condominium ownership is involved, the route can depend on whether the work affects common parts and whether the owner-landlord has authority to arrange it. The OGH considered a request to repair or replace windows and a balcony door in its decision of 16 June 2026, 5 Ob 4/26p. It did not reconsider the admissibility of non-contentious proceedings as a general question, because that issue had already been decided conclusively in that case. It did summarise earlier case law: if the landlord lacks decision-making authority over common parts, a section 6 MRG order may require performance that cannot be enforced directly against the other condominium owners. In that limited situation, the tenant may need to pursue the maintenance claim against the landlord in ordinary civil proceedings, seeking to have the landlord exercise minority rights. Whether this applies depends on the affected component and the actual consent and decision-making arrangements. Condominium ownership alone does not exclude every section 37 MRG case. Read the OGH decision 5 Ob 4/26p and section 37(1)(2) MRG.

When can a funding objection prevent the application?

Section 6(4) MRG addresses a limited funding situation. If the work is maintenance that does not have to be ordered as a priority, its financing requires an increased main rent under sections 18 and 19 MRG, and both the majority of main tenants and the landlord object, the application must be dismissed. For this objection, the majority is counted by the number of rented units at the time of the objection.

This is not a general veto against all repairs. The rule expressly does not apply to work that must be ordered as a priority under section 3(3)(2)(a) to (c) MRG. The absence of a joint objection by the majority and landlord does not itself approve an increased main rent; the requested funding still requires a separate decision.

Where available funds or the accounting of the rent reserve matter, the article on the rent reserve in an apartment building provides the financial context. It does not replace the test under section 6(4) MRG.

What deadline applies to carrying out the work?

The court or municipality sets a reasonable period, which may not exceed one year. One year is a maximum, not a default period that either side can demand. The authority must specify the work and the time required in the individual case. Work that must be ordered as a priority under section 3(3)(2)(a) to (c) MRG must be ordered separately as a priority.

The period for carrying out the work is different from the four-week period for applying to the court after a municipal decision. Under section 40 MRG, that later period runs from service of the decision. See the article on section 40 MRG for that procedural stage.

Which records help explain the application?

Section 6 MRG does not prescribe a universal list of private attachments. A clear file identifies the building, the rented premises, the component and the work requested. Dated photographs, previous reports to the landlord and the landlord’s replies show the condition and its history. Technical findings, estimates or inspection records can further explain why the work is necessary and what it involves.

If urgency matters, record the effect on residents and the building. If the application requires a majority, explain which main tenants and rental units were counted and how the majority was calculated. A technical opinion can help where the cause is unclear, but it is not a statutory prerequisite for every application.

For an owner or buyer, the same records help identify outstanding work, costs and any authority or court proceedings before a decision is made. The file should describe the current condition and steps already taken, rather than contain only a general list of possible defects.

What follows if the order is not carried out?

A final order under section 6(1) MRG is an enforceable title. If the landlord lets the specified period expire without carrying out the work, every tenant in the building and the municipality within its statutory sphere may apply to the competent court to appoint an administrator. The administrator is to carry out the ordered work, raise the necessary capital and manage the building properly until the debt has been repaid.

The appointment does not happen automatically. A further court application is required, and the statutory conditions must be met. Section 6(2) MRG provides a court-based enforcement route. Whether self-help, reimbursement of costs or a rent reduction may also be available is a separate question and does not follow from the work order alone.

Does the maintenance order also decide monetary claims?

An order under section 6 MRG concerns performance of the work. It does not automatically decide whether amounts paid under a provisional increase pursuant to section 18a MRG must be refunded. That depends on the underlying decision, the specific increase, progress of the work and payments made. The article on refunds under section 18a MRG explains the separate steps.

A rent reduction or damages claim also requires its own factual and legal assessment. For a lift outage, the duration, usability and maintenance duty need separate consideration; see the article on lift outages in older buildings. An order to perform work does not decide those monetary claims.