【Description】
Reading and judging every day is a daily fixed study meeting of the Wancheng business team driven by both law and business. The case shared in this article is a case study that we will learn collectively on October 11, 2024.
In accordance with the requirements of relevant laws, regulations, and policies, from now on, the cases we learn to share will be hidden from the subject and case number information. We apologize for the inconvenience.
If you need the full text of the case, you can click on the bottom menu bar to contact us.
[Text]
[Summary of the trial]
1. The lease contract concluded between the lessor and the lessee for the house that has not obtained the construction project planning permit or has not been constructed in accordance with the provisions of the construction project planning permit shall be invalid.
2. Where the housing lease contract is invalid, and the parties request to pay for the occupation and use of the house with reference to the rent standard agreed in the contract, the people's court shall generally support it.
However, if the lessor's reasons cause a certain impact on the lessee's operation, the cost of occupying and using the house may be reduced as appropriate.
【Correlation Index】
Article 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Urban Housing Lease Contracts (Article 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Disputes over Urban Housing Lease Contracts, which came into effect on September 1, 2009), and Article 5 (Article 4 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Disputes over Urban Housing Lease Contracts, which came into effect on September 1, 2009, applies in this case)
[Plaintiff's allegation]
Lao A filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting:
1. Terminate the lease contract signed by Lao A and Lao T on August 21, 2013, and immediately vacate the house located at the junction of XX Road and XX Road in Nanchang City from the date of termination of the contract;
2. Lao T and Lao X paid 304,200 yuan in arrears of rent to Lao A, and the total interest and liquidated damages were 44,989 yuan (the arrears of rent, profits, and liquidated damages were temporarily calculated until May 29, 2015, and the rent, interest and liquidated damages were calculated according to the contract until the defendant vacated) totaling 349189 yuan;
3. The litigation costs, lawyer fees, and notary fees in this case shall be borne by Lao T and Lao X.
[Court ascertainment]
On November 1, 2011, the urban construction company leased the house at the junction of XX Road and XX Road in Nanchang City (which is part of the podium of a farmer's apartment, with a construction area of 2203.7 m2) to the investment company for commercial and office use, and the lease period was 10 years; On the day the contract was signed, the investment company entrusted Lao A to rent out the leased house. The power of attorney states that Lao A has the right to sign a lease contract with the lessee and has the right to collect rent, and all the rental income belongs to Lao A.
On November 2, 2011, the investment company issued a certificate to transfer the lease right of the above leased property to Lao A.
On August 21, 2013, the old T (Party B) and the old A (Party A) signed the Lease Contract, stipulating that Party A would lease the second floor of the house located at the junction of XX Road and XX Road in Nanchang City (i.e., the house rented by the above investment company) to Party B with a construction area of 1,300 m2, and the lease period of the house was six years, from August 30, 2013 to August 29, 2019; The first year (two years) of house rent is from August 30, 2013 to August 29, 2015, with a quarterly rent of 70,200 yuan and an annual rent of 280,800 yuan; The rent of the house will increase by 10% in the second year (two years), from August 30, 2015 to August 29, 2017, with a quarterly rent of 77,220 yuan and an annual rent of 308,880 yuan; The rent of the house will increase by 10% in the third year (two years), from August 30, 2017 to August 29, 2019, with a quarterly rent of 85,020 yuan and an annual rent of 340,080 yuan; Party B pays a deposit of 100,000 yuan to Party A, and during the lease period, if Party B is late in paying the rent without a legitimate reason, Party A has the right to charge Party B a penalty for each day of overdue, and Party A has the right to terminate the contract and the deposit will not be refunded if the rent is not paid for more than 20 days. After the contract was signed, Lao A delivered the leased property to Lao T as agreed, and Lao T also paid a deposit of 100,000 yuan to Lao A.
Lao T renovated more than 600 square meters of houses into Internet cafes, and later renovated the remaining 600 square meters of houses into hot pot restaurants and mahjong parlors. After Lao T paid 2 quarters of rent to Lao A, he never paid the rent to Lao A. On May 31, 2016, the Qingyunpu District People's Court took compulsory enforcement measures against the case, seizing Internet cafes, hot pot restaurants and mahjong parlors, and Lao T and Lao X (the wives of Lao T) ceased to operate.
In the retrial, Lao X submitted the certification materials issued by the Urban and Rural Development Bureau of Qingyunpu District, Nanchang City, the main content of which was that the house involved in the case did not apply for a construction project planning permit at the Bureau, and also submitted the certification materials issued by the Qingyunpu District Cultural Bureau, the main content of which was that the Haidu Internet Café (that is, the Internet café operated by Lao T and Lao X in the house involved in the case) did not obtain the "Fire Safety Inspection Certificate for Public Gathering Places Before Putting into Use and Operation" issued by the fire department, so they did not apply for the "Network Business License".
[The court held that]
The focus of the dispute in this case is:
1. On whether the housing lease contract in this case is valid. Although Lao A and the urban construction company submitted the minutes of the meeting of the General Office of the Nanchang Municipal Government, the minutes of the meeting of the Qingyunpu District People's Government, and the relevant documents of the Qingyunpu District Development and Reform Commission, they failed to submit the construction planning permit of the house involved in the case or the documents approved by the competent department for construction.
In the retrial, Lao X submitted the supporting materials issued by the Urban and Rural Development Bureau of Qingyunpu District, Nanchang City, proving that the house involved in the case had not applied for a construction project planning permit at the bureau. During the retrial review, the court investigated with the Qingyunpu District Development and Reform Commission and the Jiangxi Provincial Department of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and learned that the construction project of the rental housing involved in the case had not been submitted to the relevant competent authorities for approval of the feasibility study report, that is, the construction had not been approved by the competent authorities.
To sum up, it can be determined that the house involved in this case did not apply for a construction project planning permit or was approved by the competent department for construction. According to Article 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Urban Housing Lease Contracts (hereinafter referred to as the "Judicial Interpretations on Cases of Disputes over Urban Housing Lease Contracts"), the housing lease contract signed by Lao T and Lao A is invalid.
2. Regarding whether Lao T and Lao X can be exempted from rent, and ask Lao A and the urban construction company to compensate for the losses. According to Article 5 of the Judicial Interpretation on Cases of Disputes over Urban Housing Lease Contracts, "if a housing lease contract is invalid and the parties request to pay the fees for the occupation and use of the house with reference to the rent standard agreed in the contract, the people's court shall generally support it." ”
Therefore, the request of Lao T and Lao X for rent exemption is not supported. However, because the Haidu Internet café operated by Lao T and Lao X failed to apply for the "Network Business License", it had a certain impact on its operation, and the cost of occupying and using the house could be reduced as appropriate.
According to the agreement between the two parties, from August 30, 2013 to May 31, 2016, Lao T should pay the house rent of 793,260 yuan to Lao A, and the court determined that Lao T should pay 600,000 yuan to Lao A for the occupancy and use of the house, deducting the 140,400 yuan already paid, and should also pay 459,600 yuan.
Due to the invalidity of the housing lease contract in this case, according to the relevant provisions of the original Contract Law, Lao T should vacate the house to Lao A, and the deposit of 100,000 yuan collected by Lao A should be refunded, and Lao A's request that Lao T should pay liquidated damages to him as agreed in the contract was not supported. After the above expenses are offset, Lao T should also pay 359,600 yuan to Lao A for the occupancy and use of the house, and Lao X shall bear joint and several liabilities for repayment. As for Lao T and X's request that Lao A and the urban construction company should compensate them for the renovation loss of 3 million yuan, the case was not heard because Lao T and Lao X did not provide evidence to prove it and did not file a counterclaim in this case.
【Referee Process】
On September 21, 2015, the People's Court of Qingyunpu District of Nanchang City rendered the (2015) Qing Min San Chu Zi No. [] Civil Judgment:
1. Terminate the Lease Contract signed on August 21, 2013 between the plaintiff A and the defendant T;
2. Within three months from the effective date of this judgment, the defendant Lao T vacated the house located at the junction of XX Road and XX Road in Nanchang City (the second floor of part of the podium of the Xianghu Peasant Apartment, with a construction area of 1,300 m2) to the plaintiff Lao A;
3. Defendants T and X shall pay Plaintiff A a total of RMB 349189 in rent and liquidated damages within seven days from the effective date of this judgment (the rent and liquidated damages after May 30, 2015 shall be calculated until the defendant T vacates);
4. The deposit of RMB 100,000 paid by the defendant to the plaintiff A belongs to the plaintiff and will not be returned;
5. Reject plaintiff A's other litigation claims.
Old X appealed.
On March 23, 2016, the Intermediate People's Court of Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, rendered the (2015) Hong Min San Zhong Zi No. 266 Civil Judgment: upholding items 1, 2 and 5 of the first-instance judgment, revoking item 4, and changing item 3 to "Lao T and Lao X shall pay the rent and liquidated damages from Lao A to August 29, 2015 in a total of RMB 319389 within seven days from the effective date of this judgment; Lao T and Lao X shall pay the rent of Lao A from August 30, 2015 to the actual vacancy of the house within seven days from the effective date of this judgment (calculated at 25,740 yuan per month)".
Lao X was dissatisfied and applied for a retrial.
On December 20, 2016, the Jiangxi Provincial High People's Court rendered the (2016) Gan Min Zai [] Civil Judgment: revoking the judgments of first and second instance, and reordering Lao T to vacate the house located at the junction of XX Road and XX Road in Nanchang City (the second floor of part of the property of the podium of a farmer's apartment, with a construction area of 1,300 m2) to Lao A within three months from the effective date of this judgment; Lao T shall pay 359,600 yuan to Lao A for the occupancy and use of the house within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment, and Lao X shall be jointly and severally liable for repayment.