Introduction: Ms. Wang will be rented to her cousin to live in a set of public housing, her cousin privately for the surrender of the house, and then their own rental of the set of public housing, the two sides disputes. The public housing disputes lawyer tells you how Ms. Wang to get back the right to use the public housing. Keywords: public housing tenant change, public housing lease contract is invalid Case Introduction

Ms. Wang originally in the Dongcheng District, Beijing, there is a bungalow, 1986, through the relatives of the bungalow replacement, the bungalow will be replaced by a state-owned units of the Xicheng District, Beijing, the nature of the public housing is still tenant, by Ms. Wang to pay the rent and live. After living for half a year, Ms. Wang wanted to study abroad, coincidentally, her cousin Liu wanted to temporarily borrow the room, Ms. Wang agreed and gave the key to her cousin. The first time I saw a woman in the house, I was able to see her, and I was able to see her, and I was able to see her, and I was able to see her, and I was able to see her, and I was able to see her.

However, the question was not a big deal, but a shocking secret, the original Ms. Wang rented public housing has become the name of the cousin, and now because of the dispute between the neighbors, the neighbors will be the cousin sued to the court. Ms. Wang can no longer hold back, after the holidays to the unit property section inquiries, a check really found a problem. It turns out that as early as 1995, cousin Liu Mou unauthorized procedures for Ms. Wang back rent, at the same time, re-processed by its tenant of public housing related procedures, the tenant will be changed to its own name. All of this Ms. Wang simply do not know, the cousin has never revealed to Ms. Wang a news, so, a public housing disappeared out of thin air.

Ms. Wang can't accept it in any case, she asked: "Who asked you to return the room on my behalf? I was kind enough to give you a house to live in, you even did this kind of thing?" Cousin said, "Anyway, this room is now mine, you love to sue." Under no circumstances, Ms. Wang with a copy of the material from the unit to find the author of the consultation, after detailed review of the relevant information and understanding of the case, Ms. Li Song lawyer suggested Ms. Wang to confirm the invalidity of the contract. Court decision

Beijing Xicheng District People's Court after trial, according to the law made a judgment:

The defendant LiuMou and the defendant of a state-owned unit on May 15, 1995 for the Beijing Xicheng District, a bungalow of a house and change the tenant for the defendant LiuMou's behavior is invalid.

After the first trial, Liu with the original appeal to the first intermediate people's court of Beijing, the first intermediate court after hearing, according to law:

Dismissed the appeal, maintain the original judgment.

Lawyer analysis This case is a typical public housing tenant change disputes, according to the Beijing public housing management regulations, if the public housing tenant is alive, in principle, the change of tenant needs to be the original tenant's consent or authorization. Ms. Wang's cousin Liu did not authorize, according to the law should belong to the powerless agent.

The case of the disputed house is Ms. Wang to the unit rented, the original lessee is Ms. Wang, in 1986, Ms. Wang studied abroad, based on the relationship between the consideration of its housing lent to the cousin to live. Cousin in 1995 without the knowledge of Ms. Wang, in the absence of any authorization, to the unit on behalf of Ms. Wang for the withdrawal and change of the tenant of the relevant procedures. The materials that Ms. Wang has pulled out show that the signature on the check-out procedure is "Liu Mou Dai", not Ms. Wang's own application for check-out.

In addition, the original property rights unit and cousin Liu did not submit the authorization of Ms. Wang entrusted Liu for the withdrawal formalities, and now Ms. Wang has made it clear that her cousin's withdrawal and change of behavior is not recognized. According to China's "contract law" provisions, cousin LiuMou without Ms. Wang's authorization and consent, on behalf of the withdrawal and change of the lease belongs to the agency, its behavior has infringed on Ms. Wang's legal right to tenancy.

The original property rights unit knew that Liu did not submit the relevant authorization procedures, but still for its Ms. Wang rented public housing for the withdrawal and change of tenant procedures, it is clear that Liu and the original property rights unit can not be recognized as a bona fide, and the behavior has been a serious infringement of Ms. Wang's interests.

Li Song, the lawyer argued that Ms. Wang is the original legal lessee of the disputed house, its tenancy should be protected by law. From the unit of the withdrawal procedures show that Ms. Wang's cousin Liu agent for its handling, but the unit and Liu did not Ms. Wang entrusted Liu for the withdrawal procedures of the relevant proof, Ms. Wang did not recognize this behavior also do not know. Therefore, the unit and Liu in the absence of Ms. Wang's authorization and consent, for the withdrawal and change the tenant of the relevant procedures, has violated

"Contract Law" Article 52 (2): In addition, according to China's "Contract Law" Article 58 of the provisions of the contract is null and void, the property acquired as a result of the contract, shall be returned; can not be returned, or will be no need to return, shall be compensated at a discount. Should be compensated at a discount. Accordingly, Ms. Wang in the withdrawal and change the tenant is recognized invalid, can be required by law to cousin Liu returned to the house. Here, Li Song lawyer needs to point out, another core point of contention in this case is the issue of the statute of limitations, because of the withdrawal and change of tenant behavior occurred in 1995, many readers mistakenly think that has exceeded the legal provisions of the statute of limitations.

Although the withdrawal and change of tenant occurred more than ten years ago, Ms. Wang learned of the situation in 2012, and sued within two years of knowing that her rights had been infringed upon, she did not exceed the statute of limitations.

The limitations of the statute of limitations. First of all, China's law on the provisions of the statute of limitations is applicable to the right to request, request for confirmation of the invalidity of the contract is not to the relative right to request, but to request the court for the validity of the contract to confirm, in this sense, it does not apply to the provisions of the statute of limitations. Secondly, the contract is invalid because of the violation of national laws and administrative regulations of mandatory provisions, invalid contract is invalid from the beginning, even if not confirmed by the court, will not change the fact that the contract is invalid. Therefore, the confirmation of the invalidity of the contract is not subject to the limitation of the statute of limitations.

Litigation strategy guide

Combined with the case, Ms. Wang can have a variety of litigation strategy to choose, first of all, based on the fact that the two sides borrowed the house, Ms. Wang can ask cousin Liu returned to the house. However, because cousin Liu has obtained the tenant qualification of the disputed house, if the change of tenant is not recognized as invalid, Ms. Wang directly v. Return of the original

request may be difficult to be supported by the court.

In view of this, Li Song lawyer suggested Ms. Wang to choose the second litigation strategy, that is, to request the court to confirm the authorization of Liu

, and its change without Ms. Wang's consent, Ms. Wang did not know, so the above acts should be invalidated according to law. After the invalid, Ms. Wang then claimed cousin Liu returned to the house is a logical thing.

Here, Li Song lawyer especially reminded, for the improper means to change the tenant of the parties, generally do not take a chance, do not think that the change of the tenant is all right, this case is a good example, although more than ten years, but the change of behavior is still invalidated by law. If the parties are legal changes, it is best to improve the relevant authorization procedures, and pay attention to save the relevant evidence,

In order to avoid the original tenant later regret, malicious repossession of housing. If the parties can not prove, they need to bear the corresponding adverse consequences.