If the tenant subleases the house without authorization, how can the lessor who is kept in the dark protect his rights? A dispute over a housing lease contract in Pudong, Shanghai, arose due to sublease, and the lessor, Mr. Feng, was unfavorable in the first instance, and then chose to entrust a lawyer from Beijing Guanling (Shanghai) Law Firm to file an appeal. In 2023, the trial of the court of second instance ended, and Mr. Feng successfully defended his rights.
Mr. Feng is a Chang acquaintance in Jiangsu, he is flexible and good at business, and he owns a shop in Shanghai, where every inch of land is at a premium. In order to make a profit from the rent, in August 2021, Mr. Feng's wife** signed the "Shop Lease Contract" with Hu Min, in addition to the lease time, rent, and payment method, the two parties also agreed that Hu Min shall not sublease or transfer the shop without authorization.
In 2023, Mr. Feng inadvertently discovered that the tenant had changed in the shop, and after repeated questioning, Hu Min confided in the truth that the sublease had doubled. After learning of the incident, Mr. Feng's sense of imbalance welled up in his heart, and he angrily sued Hu Min and the sublessee Liu Zifeng to the court.
At the end of the first trial, the six big words "rejecting all claims" on the verdict came into view. The reason is that Hu Min reached a cooperative operation agreement with Liu Zifeng after subleasing the house, and actually participated in the operation of the shop, and the sublease relationship between Hu Min and Liu Zifeng has been changed to a cooperative operation relationship, and the fact of sublease has been extinguished.
Dissatisfied with the verdict, Mr. Feng turned to Beijing Guanling (Shanghai) Law Firm for help, and Guanling Law Firm assigned lawyers Xiong Yueqi and Xie Qizheng to handle the case.
After intervening in the case, Guanling's lawyer first copied and studied the first-instance judgment and the contents of the Shop Lease Contract involved in the case, and pointed out that the contract established in accordance with the law is legally binding on the parties. The Shop Lease Contract signed by Mr. Feng and Hu Min is an expression of the true intentions of both parties, and the content does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and the contract is legal and valid, and both parties should abide by it.
After further collecting evidence, Guanling's lawyer found that although Hu Min and Liu Zifeng had signed a cooperative operation agreement, Hu Min was not the actual person in charge of the merchant's business license. Subsequently, the lawyer took this as a breakthrough to express the facts in French, citing scriptures and classics to explain that Mr. Feng's claim was based on the law.
*On the same day, the lawyer of the crown leader pointed out:
First of all, Hu Min entered into a sublease agreement with Liu Zifeng on the second day after Mr. Feng delivered the house, which obviously did not comply with the non-sublease clause stipulated in the contract, and Hu Min's malicious intent in breach of contract to sublease was obvious.
Second, Hu Min signed a cooperative operation agreement with Liu Zifeng three months after the sublease, but it is doubtful whether she actually participated in the operation, and her subsequent participation in the operation does not necessarily eliminate the fact that she breached the contract and subleased.
In the second instance, Hu Min claimed that Mr. Feng had known about the sublease and defended it with a statute of limitations, but the court rejected it because he did not provide sufficient evidence.
In the end, the court of second instance ruled to revoke the judgment of first instance, and Hu Min paid Mr. Feng 10,000 yuan in liquidated damages, and terminated the "Shop Lease Contract" involved in the case. Under the leadership of the lawyer, Mr. Feng successfully repossessed the house, and his dissatisfaction was calmed down.