[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over a housing lease contract (for a farming site). In March 2016, the plaintiff, Li * , signed a 20-year farming site lease contract with the defendants, Yang * 1 and Yang * 2, and invested in building a shed. However, in January 2021, the defendants suddenly locked the doors and evicted him. The first-instance court dismissed the plaintiff's claims due to insufficient evidence. The plaintiff then entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case on his behalf.Wang FangliThe lawyer appealed, and the second-instance court ruled to revoke the original judgment and remand the case for retrial. During the retrial, the lawyer presented evidence and appraisals regarding the consequences of the contract's termination and the residual value loss. Ultimately, the court ruled that the contract was terminated on January 28, 2021, and the two defendants were ordered to compensate the plaintiff for the losses of the duck coop and associated facilities amounting to 62,829 yuan, as well as the appraisal fees of 4,400 yuan, totaling 67,229 yuan in recovered damages for the plaintiff. The core disputes involved the determination of the contract's termination by mutual agreement and the scope of compensation for residual value losses after termination. The applicable legal provisions were the provisions on contract termination, restitution, and compensation for damages in the Civil Code.

I. Review of the case facts

Many business owners search for "How to handle disputes over lease contracts for livestock farms?”“What should I do if I'm evicted from the rented venue by the landlord who has locked the door?"..."After renting land to build a shed, if the landlord changes his mind, who will compensate for the losses?By the time they say "I have no choice but to take legal action," they are often already in a passive position. On March 10, 2016, the plaintiff, Li * *, was introduced by the intermediary, Luo * *, and signed a "Lease Contract" with the defendants, Yang * *1 and Yang * *2, stipulating a 20-year lease term for raising meat ducks; the first payment was for 5 years' rent of 30,000 yuan, followed by annual payments of 6,000 yuan every three years. After signing the contract, the plaintiff has been operating normally and invested a large amount of money in building duck sheds and ancillary facilities. However, on January 28, 2021, the defendants suddenly locked the gates of the farm and demanded that the plaintiff move out, resulting in huge losses to the plaintiff's previous investments. Therefore, the plaintiff consulted various parties about this matter.If the lease contract is terminated before its expiration, can I claim compensation for the losses incurred?The plaintiff sued the defendant for infringement of copyright, but the court rejected the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient, and the case once ended in a losing deadlock. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the judgment and entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Wang FangliThe lawyer filed an appeal, and the appellate court, after reviewing the case, supported our claims and ruled to revoke the first-instance judgment and remand the case for retrial. The case was thus "rescued from the brink of failure", providing the client with a crucial opportunity to potentially win the case and achieve their goals in the future.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: When and how was the lease contract relationship between the two parties terminated?It is the notice of termination claimed by the defendant, or the negotiated termination confirmed in the court trial, that directly determines the starting point of the consequences of the termination and the prerequisites for compensation.
  • Focus Two: After the contract is terminated, should the lessee compensate for the residual value loss of the duck coop and ancillary facilities built by the plaintiff, and how should the scope of compensation be defined?This requires a comprehensive judgment based on the performance of the lease, the investment in construction, and the appraisal report.
  • Focus Three: Whether the loss of meat ducks claimed by the plaintiff has factual and legal basis.Whether the part of the loss can be supported by the court is crucial to the overall amount of compensation.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff originally claimed that:The plaintiff, Li *, claimed that the lease contract between the two parties should be terminated, and the two defendants should return the remaining rent, compensate for the losses of the duck shed and the losses of the marketable ducks, and the defendants should bear the litigation costs; the plaintiff had previously invested a large amount of money in building the farm, and the defendants' act of locking the door and evicting him caused him huge losses, so the defendants should compensate him.

The defendant (the lessor) argued that:The two defendants disagreed with the plaintiff's claims and argued that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant had already been terminated: when the parties signed the contract, the other party was Luo * and the plaintiff, not just the plaintiff alone, and the first rental payment was also made by Luo *. In October 2020, Luo * informed the defendant that he wanted to terminate the Lease Contract for personal reasons, but the defendant repeatedly requested the plaintiff to pay the next year's rent without receiving any response. In April 2021, the defendant sent a notice of termination and restoration of the original state through a representative. As a co-lessee, Luo * argued that the termination of the contract should be regarded as the consent of all co-lessees, and the plaintiff's long-term failure to pay the rent constituted a breach of contract. The defendant therefore had the right to reclaim the courtyard, so the plaintiff's claim for loss of enclosure had no legal basis, and the defendant requested that the plaintiff's claims be dismissed.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:After accepting the commission,Wang FangliThe lawyer comprehensively reviewed the facts and evidence of the case and put forward the following legal opinions:

  • According to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, if the contract has not been performed after its termination, the performance shall be terminated; if the contract has been performed, the parties may request the restoration of the status quo or take other remedial measures according to the performance and the nature of the contract, and have the right to request compensation for losses.
  • In this case, the court ultimately recognized that the lease contract was terminated on January 28, 2021, which should be regarded as a consensual termination between the two parties, laying a legal foundation for subsequent compensation claims.
  • In the lawsuit, our side applied for an appraisal of the residual value loss of the farm. After the appraisal, the total value of the residual value loss of the farm amounted to 218,953.96 yuan; among which, the losses of the duck shed and its auxiliary facilities, combined with the performance of the lease contract between the two parties and the fact that the plaintiff built the duck shed, and according to the appraisal report's evaluation opinion, the defendant should compensate for all of them.
  • We submit lease contracts, receipts, audio recordings, witness statements, appraisal fee invoices, and other evidence materials to corroborate our claims, forming a complete chain of evidence.

IV. Outcome of the case

After the trial, the court adopted some of the opinions and claims of Hengluo Lawyers. Regarding whether the lease contract involved in the case was terminated, the court confirmed that the lease contract was terminated on January 28, 2021, and should be regarded as a consensual termination between the parties. Regarding the consequences of the contract termination, the court determined that the two defendants should compensate the plaintiff for the loss of the duck coop and its ancillary facilities in the amount of 62,829 yuan, taking into account the degree of fault of both parties. As for the loss of the ducks for slaughter, the court did not support the claim because there was no legal basis or factual evidence. Regarding the appraisal fees, the plaintiff paid 11,000 yuan for the appraisal of the losses. Based on the fault of both parties, the plaintiff should bear 6,600 yuan and the two defendants should bear 4,400 yuan. In summary, the court ruled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China as follows: 1. Confirm that the lease contract signed by the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated on January 28, 2021; 2. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff 62,829 yuan for the loss of the duck coop and its ancillary facilities within ten days from the effective date of this judgment; 3. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff 4,400 yuan for the appraisal fees within ten days from the effective date of this judgment. In this case, the parties recovered a total of 67,229 yuan in direct losses, and the legal consequences of the contract termination were confirmed.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

In disputes over housing leases and venue leases, the lessor's unilateral locking of the door and eviction do not necessarily result in the legal effect of contract termination. The lessee may also be compensated for the residual value loss of the construction investment made in the early stage. This case was handled by Beijing Hengluo Law Firm.Wang FangliThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101201911086939, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. It is recommended that the lessee, when signing a long-term lease contract, clearly stipulate the conditions for termination, the ownership and compensation of construction investments, and properly preserve evidence such as rent payments, construction investments, and communication records. In the event of a dispute, it is advisable to promptly engage a professional lawyer to intervene in order to protect their legitimate rights and interests to the greatest extent possible.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Housing Lease Contract Disputes

  1. Q: If the landlord unilaterally locks the door and doesn't allow entry, can the lease contract be considered terminated?
    A:Locking the door itself does not equal to legal termination. The termination of the contract requires compliance with the agreed or statutory conditions, and usually should be subject to notice, consultation or litigation judgment; if one party locks the door without authorization and causes losses, they may also be required to bear compensation.
  2. Q: I built a duck shed on the rented land. Can I get back the losses of building the shed after the contract is terminated?
    A:It can be claimed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code on restoring the status quo and compensating for losses after the contract is rescinded. The key factors to consider include the contractual provisions, the performance of the contract, the faults of both parties, and the opinions of appraisal and evaluation.
  3. Q: If I'm evicted before the lease contract expires, how can I collect evidence to protect my rights?
    A:The lessee should keep the lease contract, rent receipts, construction investment invoices, on-site photos and videos, communication recordings, witness statements, etc., and apply for property or evidence preservation and commission an appraisal as soon as possible.
  4. Q: If one of the joint lessees says to terminate the contract, will it be effective for the others?
    A:Whether the joint lessee's notice of termination applies to all parties depends on the contractual parties, the authorization, and the actual performance of all parties. It cannot be simply assumed that "if one person says to terminate the contract, all parties will terminate it".
  5. Q: Can I still appeal a case even if I lose at the first instance? What does it mean if the appeal is sent back for a retrial?
    A:After losing the first-instance trial, one can still appeal. If the second-instance court revokes the original judgment and remands the case for retrial, it means that the case will be reviewed again in the first-instance court. This is an important opportunity to reverse the losing situation, and one should fully present evidence during the retrial stage.