Upstairs kitchen converted into toilet.
What would the kitchen downstairs think?
Of course I can't bear it!
In fact. This is also clear in the Residential Design Code.
Prohibitions. Client: I'm only partially changing, not "facing it".
Court: Partial overlap is also not possible, it must be restored!
Recently, the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment on a dispute over adjacent relationships, finding that the clause that "the bathroom should not be directly arranged on the upper floor of the bedroom, living room (hall), kitchen and dining room of the lower floor residents" stipulated in the "Residential Design Code" issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China is a mandatory provision, and it is a violation to let part of the bathroom area face the downstairs kitchen after changing the structure of the house.
There is a leak in the home, and the upstairs kitchen has been turned into a toilet.
Previously, Mr. Zhang found that there was a water leak in his home, so he went upstairs to check, but unexpectedly found that after the upstairs house was renovated, part of the kitchen area was turned into a bathroom, and a toilet was placed. Such a change made Mr. Zhang's family feel unacceptable, "There is a toilet above the kitchen, and no one can bear this matter." As the negotiation failed, Mr. Zhang sued Mr. Gao, an upstairs resident, to the court, demanding that the other party restore the structural layout of the house.
Mr. Gao was sued, in fact, he also had grievances, "I bought a second-hand house, and the structural changes of the house were made by the previous owner in 2014, and this pattern has been maintained for 9 years, and I have not changed the housing pattern after buying this house."
The Ministry of Urban-Rural Development's Residential Design Code clearly stipulates that "toilets should not be directly arranged on the upper floors of the bedrooms, living rooms (halls), kitchens, and dining rooms of lower-floor residents", and that Mr. Gao's house renovation pattern violated the requirements of the national mandatory standards. In addition, the court held that based on the special purpose of the bathroom, such a renovation would cause discomfort to the owners of the downstairs, which was not in line with the living habits of ordinary people and was contrary to good customs.
Accordingly, the court of first instance ordered Mr. Gao to restore the bathroom and kitchen structures of the house to their original state. Subsequently, Mr. Gao appealed.
Direct arrangement", only one square meter of edge is also counted
Mr. Gao appealed, arguing that the Residential Design Code (GB 50096-2011) stated that the bathroom should not be "directly arranged" on the upper level of the kitchen of the lower floor resident, and that "direct arrangement" should mean "directly facing the house", or at least "the core area coincides", and that if it is only a side or the non-core area overlaps slightly, it should not be considered as a "direct arrangement".
He believes that the bathroom formed after the renovation of the house is not directly arranged above the kitchen downstairs, but only one square meter of non-core areas overlapping, which will not have a psychological impact on ordinary people, nor does it violate public order and good customs. In addition, Mr. Gao said that the house involved in the case was an old building, and restoring it to its original state might affect the safety of the building.
In this regard, Mr. Zhang said that after the renovation of the house upstairs, there has been a water leak in his home, and the upstairs should restore the structure of the house, and the house in the community is renovated every year, and the upstairs can hire a qualified design and construction party to restore the structure of the bathroom and kitchen to its original state.
The toilet is not appropriate for the kitchen, both legally and logically.
In this case, the Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court held that the Residential Design Code clearly stipulates that the bathroom should not be directly arranged on the upper floor of the bedroom, living room (hall), kitchen and dining room of the residents on the lower floors. In the absence of a lawful basis and legitimacy, the court of first instance ruled that it was not improper for Mr. Gao to restore the structure of the bathroom and kitchen to its original state.
Accordingly, the Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment after the final trial of the case.
In its judgment, the Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court specifically pointed out that as neighbors should follow the guidance of the core values of socialism and handle disputes between neighbors in a friendly manner, although the renovation of houses is the freedom of the owners, it should be carried out within the scope permitted by the norms. In view of the special functions of the bathroom and kitchen, the Residential Design Code made mandatory provisions on the layout of the bathroom and kitchen in the form of a mandatory clause, and although Mr. Gao argued that he was not the subject of the renovation, as the owner of the house in question, he should bear the responsibility of restoring the house to its original state, and if he believed that there were other responsible parties, he could make a separate claim.
*:Rule of Law**Quan**Reporter Xu Weilun The copyright belongs to the original author, if there is any infringement, please contact