As the saying goes, distant relatives are not as good as close neighbors.
However, there are various neighborhood disputes in real life, such as those who are facing the downstairs residents' kitchens after changing the location of the bathroom after their own renovation, and those who walk their dogs without leashes in the community, and after being condemned by the owners group, the other party believes that they are infringing.
So, if such a thing is sued in court, how will the court decide?
Mr. Zhang, who lives in Room 202 of a community in Chaoyang District, Beijing, suddenly found that the ceiling of his kitchen was leaking one day, and after careful inspection, he thought that the water should have leaked from Room 302 upstairs, so he went to 302 to check, and it didn't matter if he found that the top of his kitchen was the toilet of 302, that is to say, the water leaking from the kitchen in Mr. Zhang's house was actually the water in the upstairs bathroom.
Judge Xia Li of Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court: (Mr. Zhang) found that the kitchen and bathroom upstairs had been altered, and the two families also negotiated, but in the end there was no result. After that, Mr. Zhang also looked for the property in the community, and the property company also sent a rectification notice to the 302 (owner), asking him to rectify within a time limit, but in the end, the 302 owner did not respond and did not rectify.
It can be seen from the floor plan that the owner of 302 has made great changes to the location of the bathroom, which directly leads to a considerable part of the bathroom area of his house being located just above the kitchen of room 202 downstairs. Such a change made it difficult for Mr. Zhang's family in 202 to accept. After many negotiations and complaints to no avail, Mr. 202 sued the owner of 302 to the court, demanding that 302 restore the original structural layout of the house.
During the court trial, the owner of 302 admitted the fact that part of the original kitchen area of the house was converted into a bathroom and a toilet was placed, but replied that this house was a second-hand house he bought, and this change was changed by the owner when he renovated it before 2014, and this pattern had been maintained for 9 years at the time of the lawsuit, and there was no problem of adverse impact on the psychology of the owner of 202. In addition, the house involved in the case was built in 1988 and belongs to a typical old community, and the buildings in the community are brick and concrete structures, and the quality is worrying, and the neighbors also showed their testimony that if the structure of the house is restored to its original state according to the requirements of the 202 homeowner, it will inevitably be necessary to dig the ground again, remove the old wall, and build a new wall, and such a large renovation may cause cracks in the building and cause greater safety hazards. The owner of 202 did not recognize this, and provided photos saying that there were owners in the community who were decorating.
After trial, the court held that civil entities engaged in civil activities must not violate the law and must not violate public order and good customs. The adjacent rights holders of immovable property shall correctly handle the adjacent relationship in accordance with the principles of conducive to production, convenient life, solidarity and mutual assistance, fairness and reasonableness.
In this case, although the renovation of the house is the freedom of the owner, it needs to be carried out within the scope permitted by the regulations. In view of the special functions of toilets and kitchens, the "Residential Design Code" issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the mainland clearly stipulates that toilets should not be directly arranged on the upper floors of bedrooms, living rooms (halls), kitchens and dining rooms of lower-level residents. And this clause is mandatory.
Accordingly, the court found that the 302 homeowner's act of altering the structure of the house to allow part of the bathroom to face the kitchen downstairs was a violation.
After the trial, the court held that based on the special purpose of the bathroom, the renovation of room 302 would cause discomfort to the owners downstairs, which was not in line with the living habits of ordinary people and violated good customs. As for the 302 homeowner's argument that the building is too old and the wall needs to be demolished again to restore the original state, it may cause potential safety hazards to the building, because there is no evidence to support it, and the court will not accept it.
The court finally ordered the owner of the 302 homeroom to restore the bathroom and kitchen structure of the house to its original state.
As for the 302 homeowner's claim that the house was a second-hand house he bought, and that this alteration was caused by the renovation of the previous homeowner, the judge explained that even if it is true, it will not affect the court's judgment and enforcement. Homeowners can resolve issues through negotiation with the previous landlord or by suing.
Judge Xia Li of Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court: Assuming that this was changed by the previous owner, he, as the current owner of the house, must first bear the corresponding legal responsibility, and if he believes that this was caused by the previous owner, the dispute between him and the former owner over the alteration of the house needs to be resolved separately.
Have you ever had a neighborhood dispute?
How was it solved in the end?
Source: CCTV news client