[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over the confirmation of the right to inhabit and use the relocation housing in the demolition. The two single-story houses at No. 115, Dongcheng District, Beijing, were leased by Sun *. In 2002, Sun * signed the "On-site Relocation Contract for Hazardous Housing Reconstruction", and the relocated house at No. 301, Dongcheng District (the house involved in the case) was registered under Sun *'s name, with a total of five relocated people, including the plaintiffs Wei *1 and Wei *2 (Sun *'s nieces). After Sun *'s death in August 2020, the two plaintiffs, as the relocated people, requested to confirm their right to inhabit and use the house involved in the case. The defendants, Xu * and his son, raised objections on the grounds of empty household registration, inheritance mediation agreement, etc. The two plaintiffs entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe lawyer acted as an agent. The lawyer started with the resettlement contract and the housing price calculation table to prove that the purchase price included a discount based on the resettlement population factors of the two plaintiffs. The court, in accordance with Article 234 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, confirmed that the two plaintiffs have the right to live and use the No. 301 house. The case acceptance fee of 35 yuan shall be borne by the defendant.

I. Review of the Case

The following are common questions in land expropriation and demolition disputes: Do stepchildren and nieces have the right to live in the relocation housing? How to determine the qualification of the relocated people? Can the relocation contract confirm the right to use the housing? Sun * and Xu * are husband and wife and have a son, Xu *1; the plaintiffs, Wei *1 and Wei *2, are sisters and are Xu *'s nieces. The two single-story houses located at No. 115, Dongcheng District, Beijing are leased by Sun *. Sun *, Xu *, and the two plaintiffs' original household registration were all in this house.

In 2002, Sun * signed a "Hazardous Housing Renovation and On-Site Resettlement Contract" with a real estate development company in Beijing. The company demolished Sun *'s original house and relocated him to the house at No. 301 in Dongcheng District, Beijing (the house involved in the case), which was registered under Sun *'s name. The number of people to be resettled was 5, including the two plaintiffs. When Sun * purchased the house involved in the case, he used the household registration quotas of the two plaintiffs and enjoyed purchase discounts. As the resettled people, the two plaintiffs should have the right to live and use the house involved in the case. In August 2020, Sun * passed away.

The defendant, Xu * and his son, disagreed with the plaintiffs' claims, stating that the house to be demolished belonged to Sun *. The plaintiffs' household registration was registered by Sun * because they did not want to move back to the countryside after graduation and had never lived there. They claimed that under the resettlement policy at that time, the plaintiffs did not qualify as resettled individuals and did not enjoy the household registration benefits. Currently, Xu * lives in a nursing home and rents out the house involved in the case to offset the cost. To safeguard their rights and interests, the plaintiffs entrusted our law firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe challenge in lawyer representation lies in how to prove that the two plaintiffs have the legitimate rights to the houses involved in the case.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the two plaintiffs are the resettled persons of the houses involved in the case and whether they enjoy the right to use the houses for residence.It is necessary to determine the identity of the resettled population and their eligibility for preferential policies based on the resettlement contract and the housing price calculation table.
  • Focus II: Does the purchase price based on the relocation incentives obligate the owner to guarantee the two plaintiffs' right to inhabit and use the property?This is the core legal logic for confirming the right to use a residence.
  • Focus Three: Can the defendant, who holds the inheritance mediation document, claim that the house is no longer in Sun's name, and thereby challenge the rights of the two plaintiffs?It is necessary to clarify the relationship between inheritance and the rights in the resettlement contract.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The plaintiff originally claimed that:The two plaintiffs claimed that they were the resettled persons specified in the "On-site Resettlement Contract for the Dangerous Area", and Sun * used the household registration quotas of the two plaintiffs and enjoyed preferential treatment when purchasing the house. Therefore, the two plaintiffs, as the resettled persons, have the right to live and use the house involved in the case No. 301.

The defendant argued that:The defendants, Xu * and his son, claimed that the house being demolished belonged to Sun *. The two plaintiffs' household registration was registered on behalf of them, and they never lived in the house, so they did not qualify as the resettled people. They also held the inheritance mediation agreement to argue that the house was no longer in Sun *'s name. Even if there was a right of residence, it should be guaranteed by the buyer Sun *, and the two defendants, as the owners, had no corresponding legal obligations.

Hengluo Lawyer's Representation Opinion:Li YonghuiThe lawyer decided to start by finding the on-site resettlement contract and the implementation rules for the government's renovation of dilapidated houses. The contract stated that the resettled population included the two plaintiffs, and the attached housing price calculation table reflected the preferential purchase price based on 15 square meters per plaintiff, totaling 30 square meters. The rules stipulated that within the per capita area of 15 square meters and a resettled population of 5 people, or 75 square meters, the purchase price was 1560 yuan per square meter, and the excess part was purchased at 5000 yuan per square meter. In 2003, this preferential price was a significant amount. Despite the difficulty of obtaining evidence after many years, the lawyer eventually found the key evidence.

  • In response to the defendant's delay in holding the trial and his absence due to not receiving the subpoena, the lawyer argued for a postponement of the trial and then held it again. Moreover, the lawyer revealed that the defendant evaded the trial because he hadn't received the inheritance mediation agreement yet
  • During the trial, by presenting facts and evidence, it was pointed out that the house involved in the case was demolished from House No. 115, and the two plaintiffs were the resettled people specified in the contract. The purchase price of the house included a discount for the resettled people, and the owner of the house had the obligation to guarantee the plaintiffs' right to live and use the house when obtaining the ownership of the house
  • Refute the defendant's claim of using the inheritance mediation document to counterattack, and emphasize that the facts will not change just because of opportunism

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that where there is a dispute over the ownership and content of property rights, interested parties may request the confirmation of rights. According to the established facts, the house involved in the case was demolished from Building No. 115 in Dongcheng District of Beijing City. Wei *1 and Wei *2 are the resettled persons specified in the "Local Resettlement Contract for Hazardous Area Renovation", and according to the contract and the housing price calculation table, there are preferential policies based on the resettled population in the purchase price of the house involved in the case. Therefore, when the house owner obtains ownership according to the resettlement contract, he/she has the obligation to ensure that the two plaintiffs, as the resettled persons, can live and use the house involved in the case. The two defendants, who inherited the house involved in the case, should also bear this obligation. According to Article 234 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the court ruled that: confirm that the plaintiffs Wei *1 and Wei *2 have the right to live and use the house at No. 301 in Dongcheng District of Beijing City; and the case acceptance fee of 35 yuan shall be borne by the defendants Xu * and Xu *1.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

In the process of demolition and resettlement, the qualifications of the resettled people and their right to use the housing are often overlooked. When signing the contract, the resettled people should keep the resettlement contract, the housing price calculation form and other documents carefully. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Li YonghuiThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101199611955812, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acted on behalf of the client and, based on his thorough understanding of the resettlement contract and preferential policies, successfully secured the client's right to occupy and use the resettlement housing.

VI. FAQ on Disputes over the Right to Reside in Relocation Housing after Demolition

  1. Q: As a resettled person, do I have the right to live in the resettlement housing provided by the government after the demolition?
    A:If the resettlement contract clearly lists you as a resettled person and grants you purchase discounts based on your household registration indicators, the homeowner, who obtains the house, also has the obligation to guarantee your right to live and use it. You can file a lawsuit to confirm this.
  2. Q: If the household registration is only registered at the demolished house, can I claim the right to use it as a residence?
    A:The key point is whether the person being resettled is specified in the contract and whether they actually enjoy the resettlement benefits. It's generally difficult to support a mere fictitious employment relationship, and this needs to be judged in light of the contract and relevant policies.
  3. Q: The original lessee has passed away, and the resettlement housing has been sold by the heirs. Do I still have the right to live there?
    A:When inheriting the house, the heir shall assume the obligation to guarantee the resettled persons' right to use the house based on the resettlement contract, and may claim rights in accordance with the law.
  4. Q: How can I prove that I am the resettled person in the demolition resettlement contract?
    A:You can retrieve the "Hazardous Building Transformation and On-site Resettlement Contract", the housing price calculation table, household registration materials, and expropriation policies. If necessary, you can apply for a lawyer to investigate and collect evidence.
  5. Q: If the defendant fails to appear in court and delays the proceedings, can the demolition case still be adjudicated?
    A:Yes. If a person is summoned by a subpoena but refuses to appear in court without a valid reason, the court may conduct the trial in absentia and make a judgment according to law. Delaying the trial does not exempt them from their obligations.