[Case Summary]This case is a civil lawsuit over a land rental dispute (involving the classification of an administrative agreement). The plaintiff, the People's Government of Qianjin Town, A County, sued the People's Court of A County, alleging that the defendant, A County Shuguang Metal Products Factory, leased 11.56 mu of land from it in 2007 and has been in arrears with the rent for a long time. The plaintiff demands that the defendant pay the rent of 153,000 yuan and the overdue interest, and that the investor, Liu **, bear joint and several liability for the payment. The defendant jointly entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer defended the case. The lawyer constructed a defense from four aspects: the nature of the case (an administrative agreement for investment promotion rather than a civil lease), the free-rent support policy and the doctrine of reliance, the statute of limitations, and the plaintiff's insufficient evidence. The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the fact of rent arrears, and ruled to dismiss all the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff shall bear half of the case acceptance fee of 1,680 yuan.

I. Review of the case

The plaintiff, the People's Government of Qianjin Town, A County, sued A County People's Court, alleging that: The defendant, A County Shuguang Metal Products Factory, leased 11.56 mu of land located in QB Group, Qianjin Community, Qianjin Town, A County from the plaintiff in 2007 for business needs. Since 2007, Shuguang Factory has been in arrears with the rent, and despite repeated reminders, the rent has still not been paid. Since Shuguang Factory is a sole proprietorship enterprise and the defendant, Liu **, is the investor of the factory, he should bear unlimited liability for the enterprise's debts. Therefore, the plaintiff requests the court to order Shuguang Factory to pay the rent of 153,000 yuan and the overdue interest, and Liu ** to bear joint and several liability for the payment, as well as to bear the litigation costs.

Many business owners are concerned about "how to handle land rental disputes". This case shows the defendant's strategy for breaking the deadlock when the government acts as the plaintiff. The two defendants jointly hired Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Zhai Chao LiThe lawyer represented the client in the lawsuit. Facing the lawsuit initiated by the town government, Attorney Xie immediately reviewed the case facts and verified the evidence. He formulated a defense strategy based on the nature of the case, the authenticity of the evidence, the statute of limitations, and the background of investment promotion.

The defendant Shuguang Factory and the plaintiff did sign an agreement, but the agreement was signed in the context of attracting investment. The plot of land occupied by the defendant's factory was signed by the plaintiff to complete the local investment attraction and the development of the township real economy, and actively introduced the defendant to set up a factory on the site. It belongs to the investment attraction agreement supporting the government's exercise of economic administrative power.

II. The focus of the case

  • Is the agreement in question a civil lease contract between equal parties, or an administrative agreement for government investment promotion? Does this case fall within the scope of civil litigation for acceptance of cases?
  • Is there any factual basis for the plaintiff's claim of unpaid rent and interest? Is the long-term rent-free support policy applicable to this case, and has the statute of limitations for legal actions already passed?
  • The plaintiff should prove whether the evidence provided meets the standard of proof, and should bear what kind of consequences after providing the evidence.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff (People's Government of Qianjin Town) alleged that the defendant has been renting 11.56 mu of land since 2007 and has been in arrears with the rent for a long time. It demanded that the defendant pay the rent of 153,000 yuan and interest, and that the investor, Liu **, bear joint and several liability.

The defendant (Shuguang Metal Products Factory and Liu **) argued and entrustedZhai Chao LiThe lawyer raised an objection:

Firstly, the defense of the nature of the agreement. The agreement signed by the defendant and the plaintiff is an administrative agreement for investment promotion, not a civil lease contract between equal parties. According to Article 1 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Agreement Cases", it should be subject to administrative litigation relief rather than civil litigation, and the lawsuit should be dismissed. The content of the agreement includes public law rights and obligations such as administrative promises and policy preferences.

Second, the defense of statute of limitations. The plot of land involved in the case has already implemented a long-term rent-free support policy. The plaintiff, who was the town mayor at that time, verbally agreed to exempt the defendant and all operators involved in investment attraction from paying land occupation fees. This policy has been continuously implemented by successive town leaders for nearly 20 years, and the plaintiff has never requested payment in writing. After a lapse of nearly 20 years, the plaintiff's reneging on the claim for rent violates the principles of protecting the interests of good faith and trust, and even if there is an agreement, it has long exceeded the statute of limitations in the Civil Code.

Thirdly, the defense of evidence. The plaintiff's evidence is seriously insufficient. The contract is only a copy, and the defendant does not recognize its authenticity. Other evidence also cannot corroborate it. The plaintiff should bear the consequences of losing the case due to the failure to provide sufficient evidence.

IV. Outcome of the case

The People's Court of A County held that the party concerned has the responsibility to provide evidence for the claims they put forward; if the party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove their factual claims before making a judgment, the party who bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the fact that the defendant owed the rent. The defendant did not recognize the authenticity of the copy of the contract provided by the plaintiff, and other evidence could not corroborate it. Therefore, the plaintiff should bear the legal consequences of failing to provide evidence.

The court, in accordance with Article 176 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, Article 145 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, rules as follows: The plaintiff, the People's Government of Qianjin Town, A County, is dismissed from its lawsuit; the acceptance fee of the case is reduced by half to 1,680 yuan, and the plaintiff shall bear it.Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer accurately identified major flaws in the opposing party's chain of evidence, helping the defendant company win the case and have all claims dismissed.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The land occupation arrangements between the government and enterprises, if they are for attracting investment, accompanied by policy incentives and administrative promises, may constitute administrative agreements rather than civil leases. The different classifications directly affect the remedial path. Enterprises should properly preserve the policy documents for attracting investment, meeting minutes, free rent records and communication records over the years, and pay attention to the statute of limitations and the management of original evidence. When the government, as the plaintiff, claims historical rent, enterprises should defend themselves from multiple dimensions, including the nature of the agreement, the factual basis, the statute of limitations, and the provision of evidence.

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101202311629788, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

VI. Common Questions About Land Lease Disputes - FAQ

  1. Q: What should the town government do if it sues a company for historical land rent?
    A: The defense can be made from four aspects: the nature of the agreement (whether it is an administrative agreement for investment promotion), the rent-free policy and the fiduciary interest, the statute of limitations, and the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence. In this case, the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient, so the claim was dismissed.
  2. Q: When the government promoted investment, it promised rent-free periods, but later changed its mind and charged fees. Is this legal?
    A: The rent-free support in investment promotion and the principle of protecting the beneficiary's legitimate interests in administrative promises are subject to the principle of protecting the beneficiary's legitimate interests. If a party retracts its claim for rent after years of continuous implementation, it may not be supported because it violates the principle of good faith.
  3. Q: Is a land lease dispute a civil lawsuit or an administrative lawsuit?
    A: If it is an investment promotion agreement with policy incentives implemented by the government in the exercise of its administrative powers, it falls under the scope of administrative litigation according to the relevant provisions of the administrative agreement; while pure market transactions between equal parties belong to civil litigation.
  4. Q: What is the statute of limitations for rent disputes?
    A: Generally, the statute of limitations for civil rights protection is three years, starting from the date when the right holder knows or should have known that their rights have been infringed and the obligations holder's identity. If the right holder fails to assert their rights for a long time, they may lose the right to win the case.
  5. Q: Can the plaintiff win the lawsuit if they only provide a copy of the contract?
    A: No. If the other party does not recognize the authenticity of the copy, the plaintiff needs to provide other evidence to corroborate it. Otherwise, the plaintiff will bear the consequences of failing to provide evidence, and the court will not support his/her claim.