[Case Summary]This case involvesLease contract disputesSecond instance. The plaintiff, Li * *, was introduced by the intermediary, Luo * *, and signed a lease contract for the farm with the two defendants, Yang * *1 and Yang * *2, on March 10, 2016 (with a lease term of 20 years and a down payment of 30,000 yuan for the first five years). In January 2021, the defendant locked the farm and demanded that the plaintiff move out. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim due to insufficient evidence. Li * * appealed and entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Wang FangliThe lawyer filed an appeal. The lawyer pointed out that the first-instance court omitted Luo*, a party who must be jointly sued, and that the procedures were seriously violated. Moreover, there were many errors in the determination of facts, and the judgment exceeded the scope of the claim. The second-instance court accepted the appeal, ruled to revoke the original judgment and remand the case for rehearing, and refunded the second-instance case acceptance fee of 6,000 yuan. The core disputes are: whether it is a procedural violation that the co-lessee was not added as a defendant; whether the determination of facts in the first-instance judgment is consistent with the scope of the judgment; applicable legal provisions: Articles 170 and 177 of the Civil Procedure Law.

I. Review of the Case Facts

"What should I do if I lose the first-instance lawsuit for a lease contract?" and "What are the conditions for a case being sent back for a retrial in the second instance?" are topics of concern for parties involved in lease disputes. The plaintiff, Li * *, was introduced by the intermediary, Luo **, and signed a lease contract with the defendants, Yang * *1 and Yang * *2, on March 10, 2016, to raise meat ducks. The contract stipulated a 20-year lease term, with a down payment of 30,000 yuan for the first five years, and annual rent payments of 6,000 yuan every three years thereafter. Subsequently, the plaintiff operated the business normally, but on January 28, 2021, the defendants suddenly locked the gates of the farm and demanded that the plaintiff vacate the premises, causing the plaintiff to suffer huge losses. The plaintiff decided to sue in accordance with the law.

The two defendants disagreed with the plaintiff's claims, stating that the contractual party B was Luo * and not the plaintiff alone, and that the first installment of the rent was also paid by Luo *. In October 2020, Luo * requested to terminate the contract, but the defendants repeatedly asked the plaintiff to pay the next year's rent without success. In April 2021, the notice of termination was delivered by a proxy. As the plaintiff and Luo * were joint lessees and formed a unified whole, Luo *'s decision to terminate the contract should be regarded as a mutual agreement, and the plaintiff's failure to pay the rent constituted a breach of contract. Ultimately, the first-instance court ruled to dismiss the plaintiff's claims due to insufficient evidence. The plaintiff, Li *, was not satisfied with the judgment and decided to entrust Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him/her.Wang FangliThe lawyer filed an appeal.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Did the first-instance court omit the parties who must be jointly sued in the litigation?Luo * is a co-lessee. In the first-instance trial, the court failed to add him as a defendant and directly ruled to terminate the lease. Is this a serious procedural violation, and should the case be remanded for rehearing?
  • Focus Two: Whether the first-instance court's determination of the facts was erroneous.Including the signing time, Luo's agreement to terminate the contract, the time when the plaintiff moved out, and whether the determination of various facts such as the unpaid rent period was improper.
  • Focus Three: Does the first-instance judgment exceed the scope of the claim?In the first instance, the court failed to strictly distinguish between confirmation of dissolution and ordered dissolution, and it is uncertain whether the judgment exceeds the plaintiff's claims.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The appellant (Li *) claimed that:The appellant contends that the facts of the first-instance judgment are unclear and the procedures are illegal, and requests to revoke the original judgment and remand the case to the People's Court of Ningyang County, Shandong Province for retrial, with the respondent bearing the litigation costs.

The appellant's (the two Yang's) position:The appellee claimed that the contract had already been terminated and that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient, and requested that the first-instance judgment of dismissal be upheld.

Hengluo Lawyer's Representation Opinion:Wang FangliThe lawyer quickly started his representation work and pointed out that there were many unreasonable aspects in the case: First, the first-instance court, in determining that the contracting party was the appellant, Luo * and the two respondents, Luo * were co-lessees, failed to add Luo * as a party and directly ruled to terminate the contract, omitting the parties who must be jointly sued, which was a serious procedural violation. According to Article 170, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of the Civil Procedure Law, the case should be remanded for rehearing; Second, the first-instance court failed to strictly distinguish between the confirmation and termination of the contract, and the judgment exceeded the scope of the appellant's claims; Third, the first-instance court's findings of facts were unclear and contained numerous errors (the signing time could not be verified, the determination that Luo * agreed to terminate the contract was wrong, the determination that the appellant moved out was wrong, the determination that the unpaid rent period was wrong, and the determination that the construction of the duck coop was done without consent was wrong, and the reasons for terminating the contract were not distinguished); Fourth, the two respondents made false statements in court to evade responsibility and should not be supported. During the trial, Attorney Wang cross-examined and defended against the evidence and professional legal principles one by one.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court supported our claims and ruled to revoke the first-instance civil judgment and remand the case to the Ningyang County People's Court of Shandong Province for retrial. In accordance with Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Civil Procedure Law, it was decided that: First, the civil judgment No. 2022 Ru XX Min Zhong 2XX of the Ningyang County People's Court of Shandong Province shall be revoked; Second, the case shall be remanded to the Ningyang County People's Court of Shandong Province for retrial; and the second-instance case acceptance fee of 6,000 yuan prepaid by the appellant Li * shall be refunded. The successful reversal of the verdict in the second instance helped the client turn around the losing situation.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmWang FangliAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101201911086939, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ): Agent. Attorney's Reminder: Procedural violations in the first-instance proceedings (such as omitting necessary co-litigants), erroneous factual findings, and judgments exceeding the claims are all statutory grounds for remand for rehearing in the second instance; the status of co-tenants in lease disputes is of great importance. In the event of a "first-instance loss in a lease contract case", it is necessary to promptly entrust a professional lawyer to appeal and reverse the verdict from both procedural and substantive aspects.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Property Leasing Disputes

  1. Q: If I lose the first-instance lawsuit over the lease contract, is there still a chance to overturn the verdict?
    A:Yes. If the first-instance proceedings are illegal, the facts are determined incorrectly, or the judgment exceeds the scope of the claim, the second-instance court may revoke the original judgment, remand the case for retrial, or modify the judgment.
  2. Q: If the co-lessee is not added as a defendant, is the judgment still valid?
    A:It is a serious procedural violation to omit parties who must be jointly sued. Accordingly, the judgment rendered may be revoked and remanded for rehearing.
  3. Q: Is it legal for the landlord to lock the venue and evict people?
    A:It's generally not legal to lock the property and force evictions without going through the legal procedures. The lessee can claim compensation for breach of contract, and the lessor should terminate the lease and claim damages according to the law.
  4. Q: What does it mean that the second-instance court has remanded the case for rehearing?
    A:This means that the first-instance judgment is overturned, and the case is sent back to the first-instance court for retrial. The parties involved will have the opportunity to present new evidence and put forward their defenses.
  5. Q: What evidence should be prepared for a lease dispute?
    A:You should keep the lease contract, rental receipts, communication records, photos of the locked property, etc., and consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible.