1On June 9, 1994, the plaintiff Le Yi Village signed a contract with the defendant Ai Yi Company, stipulating that Le Yi Village would lease its six commercial buildings and open spaces located in Wensan Road, Gudang, Hangzhou, with a construction area of 20,000 square meters to Ai Yi Company to open Hangzhou Electronic City. The lease period is from 1995 1 to 2024. In Le Yi Village, before September 30th, 1994, the indoor floor tiles of six buildings were laid, the external walls were tiled, the fence of Zhou Tie was leveled, and the road from Wensan Road to Electronic City was repaired. If it cannot be delivered within the time limit, it shall be treated as such. The contract also stipulates the amount of rent, the delivery time, the liability for breach of contract and the conditions for the modification and termination of the contract. After that, Le Yi Village delivered the above six commercial buildings to Ai Yi Company for use. Because Le Yi Village didn't decorate the house and maintain the service road according to the contract, Ai Yi Company built it at its own expense. In the same year 1 65438+1October 28th, Le Yi Village issued a power of attorney, which clearly granted the lease right of six houses agreed in the contract to Ai Yi Company, and the authorization period was199565438+1October1to 65434 in 2024. 1 On September 5, 1996, Le Yi Village signed a supplementary agreement with Ai Yi Company, and Ai Yi Company agreed that Le Yi Village would take back four commercial buildings in the original contract, including1,No.2, No.4 and No.5, and the rent owed would be offset by the renovation funds and other investment funds of the four buildings. In the same month, the two parties re-signed the lease contract, stipulating that Le Yi Village will lease 6,399 square meters of commercial buildings and open space No.3 and No.6 to Ai Yi Company to start Hang Cheng Electronic City. The lease period is from 1 August 19961to February 20041; The monthly rent before1996 65438+February 3 1 is 12 yuan per square meter. After that, 2 yuan will be increased on the basis of the original rent every two years. Ai Yi Company pays the rent on a monthly basis. If the arrears exceed two months, Yile Village has the right to terminate the contract and take back the house. This contract shall come into effect after being signed and sealed by both parties, and the original lease contract shall be terminated simultaneously. The rent agreed in the original contract is subject to the supplementary agreement signed by both parties on September 5. After the signing of the above supplementary agreement and contract, Yiai Company returned buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 to Yile Village, and handed over to Yile Village a list of its renovation, reconstruction and road repair expenses for these four buildings, totaling 4,665,438+07263.30 yuan. Immediately, Le Yi Village subletted the above four houses to others for use, but did not review the expense list submitted by Ai Yi Company. Yi 'ai Company rebuilt and added facilities to the rented Building No.3 and Building No.6 (with an estimated value of RMB 34,365,438+084), and successively signed lease contracts with Wenxi Branch, Dapai Company, Rong Da Company and New Age Market, and delivered them to use. Among them, E-Love Company signed an agreement with New Times Market later, stipulating that the area of the first and second floors (part) of Building No.3 rented by New Times Market was 1 200m2, and E-Love Company agreed to return it to Le Yi Village from1July, 19971day, and Le Yi Village signed another lease agreement with New Times Market. However, New Era Market has neither signed an agreement with Le Yi Village nor returned the leased premises to Le Yi Village. 199965438+129 October, Le Yi Village filed a lawsuit with the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court for disputes over rent payment, renovation and road repair costs, requesting the dissolution of the housing lease contract between the two parties, and ordered Ai Yi Company to pay the rent and interest of 8,320,878.49 yuan, and bear the legal costs.

Ai Yi Company filed a counterclaim, demanding that Yile Village pay 400,000 yuan for the unfurnished house and maintenance service road, and bear the legal costs.

[referee points]

During the trial, Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court added big-name company, Wenxi Branch, New Times Market and Rong Da Company as the third person in this case. The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court held through trial that the supplementary agreement and lease contract signed by Le Yi Village and Ai Yi Company in September 1996 clearly stipulated that the lease contract would be terminated in June 1994. After recovering the four buildings, Le Yi Village should entrust relevant departments to audit the renovation investment of Ai Yi Company to offset the rent of Ai Yi Company. However, Le Yi Village failed to fulfill the contract as agreed, and then leased four buildings to others for reconstruction, which made it impossible to audit now. The resulting losses should be borne by Le Yi Village. However, Ai Yi Company failed to pay the rent as agreed, which constituted a breach of contract. Le Yi Village requested to terminate the lease relationship accordingly, and Ai Yi Company paid the rent in arrears for justified reasons to support it. In view of the fact that both parties have breached the contract during the performance of the contract, they should bear corresponding responsibilities. After the lease relationship between Le Yi Village and Ai Yi Company is terminated, Ai Yi Company shall return the house, as well as Wenxi Branch, Dapai Company, Rong Da Company and New Age Market. According to the provisions of Articles 111 and 113 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the court made the following judgment on February 2, 2000:

1. The lease contract signed by Le Yi Village and Ai Yi Company in September 1996 was terminated.

2. Ai Yi Company, New Times Market, Rong Da Company, Dapai Company and Wenxi Branch will return the No.3 and No.6 buildings belonging to Le Yi Village north of Wensan Road to Le Yi Village within one month after the judgment takes effect.

3. E-Love Company shall pay 6,394,276 yuan (from 2000 1995 1 day to 1 day, deducting the rent paid) to the house in Le Yi village within1day.

4. Le Yi Village shall pay Ai Yi Company 1, 2, 4, and 5 buildings 3,464,276.20 yuan for renovation, reconstruction and road investment within 0/0 days after this judgment comes into effect.

5. New Era Market will pay 55 1000 yuan (from 1 July 19971to 65438+3 1 June 2000) after the judgment comes into effect.

(two) the effectiveness of the sublease contract and the change of the contract subject.

For the lease contract, both the first trial and the second trial supported Le Yi Village's claim and agreed to terminate the performance. However, after the termination of the lease contract, what is the effect of the sublease contract and should it continue to be performed? The court of first instance and the court of second instance have different opinions. The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court ordered the dissolution of the lease contract between Le Yi Village and Ai Yi Company on the basis of "two months' rent arrears to terminate the contract and recover the house". In addition to the lessee Ai Yi Company, the houses occupied by the sublessors Wenxi Branch, Dapai Company, Rong Da Company and New Era Market should also be returned. In other words, the validity of the lease contract extends to the sublease contract. When the lease contract is terminated, the sublease contract is also terminated. From the point of view of the lease contract alone, there is nothing wrong with this treatment, but the rights of the sublessor are unreasonably damaged and deserve scrutiny. After trial, the Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province denied the judgment of subletting in the first instance, and decided to continue to perform the subletting contract, and Le Yi Village replaced Ai Yi Company to inherit the rights and obligations of the contract. It should be said that the judgment of the second instance is quite groundbreaking.

First, if the lease contract is terminated, the effectiveness of the sublease contract does not automatically terminate. In the above situation, the law does not expressly stipulate the validity of the sublease contract. Although Le Yi Village once granted the "lease right" of the house to Ai Yi Company in written form, it was not improper for Ai Yi Company to sublet the house and lease the house by a third party, but the new lease contract signed by Le Yi Village and Ai Yi Company later stipulated that "the house will be recovered in arrears for two months". As can be seen from the terms of the contract, Le Yi Village authorized Ai Yi Company to sublet the house unconditionally, and the court of first instance ordered it to take back the house accordingly. But the problem is that the sublease contract is legally established and being performed, and the sublease's contractual rights should also be protected by law. From the perspective of the source of rights, whether it is a lease or a sublease contract, its ultimate right comes from the lessor's legitimate right to use and benefit from the leased property. In this case, Le Yi Village leased the house to Ai Yi Company, which was a punishment for the lessor's right to use the house. In the case of E-Love Company's "arrears in rent", the court terminated the validity of the lease contract according to the agreement of both parties, which is a kind of protection for the lessor's right to use the leased property. The sublessor in the sublease contract is also the lessee in the lease contract. According to the relevant provisions of the Contract Law, the lessee may sublet the leased property to a third party with the consent of the lessor; If the lessee sublets without the consent of the lessor, the lessor may terminate the contract. It can be seen that the sublease contract was established based on the lessor's authorization to the lessee. Without the permission of the lessor, the subletting behavior is invalid. In this sense, renting a house according to the sublease contract is an extension of the lessor's will and conforms to the lessor's interests. Even if the lease contract is terminated due to the lessee's breach of contract, the sublessor will continue to use the leased property and perform relevant obligations in accordance with the stipulations of the sublease contract, and will not infringe on the lessor's rights and interests. From the perspective of equity, on the one hand, the sublessor has occupied and used the leased property within the agreed time and space latitude, and has fully fulfilled the obligations stipulated in the sublease contract; On the other hand, the lessor expressly agrees to sublease; Furthermore, the sublessor's continued lease will not harm the lessor's previously expected interests, so maintaining the effectiveness of the sublessor contract is in line with the principle of fairness in civil law. If the sublease contract is terminated with the termination of the lease contract, then the sublessor's right to use the house has been changing, and the security of the transaction has been destroyed. If we follow it, it will affect the stability of the market order, and it is not in line with the judicial trend of "real right" of the lease right in the world today. The court of second instance comprehensively considered the agreement of the two lease contracts and the true intention expressed by the parties when concluding the contract. According to the principle of good faith in civil law, from the perspective of stabilizing the market economic order and ensuring the security of transactions, it ordered that the unfulfilled sublease contract should not be affected by the termination of the lease contract. This judgment not only deals with the legal relationship between the lessor and the lessee according to law, but also properly protects the interests of the sublessor in the sublease relationship and maintains the market order. It is a "flexible" application of the law and is worthy of recognition.

The second is the application of the legal interpretation method of "lifting weights as easily as possible". As a method of legal interpretation, it is also a basic argument in legal logic. The way of reasoning is: "Still … of course"; The so-called "heavy" and "light" refer to the leniency of its legal requirements or the width and narrowness of its legal effect. Although the current law does not explicitly stipulate how to apply the law to the cases involved in this case, Article 119 of the Supreme Court's Opinions on Implementing the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) (Trial) and Article 229 of the Contract Law clearly stipulate that "the sale shall not break the contract". Of course, this case does not belong to the situation of "buying and selling does not break the lease", but according to the law of "lifting weights easily", that is, "buying and selling does not break the lease, and the lease contract is of course terminated …", and in this case, the lessor's consent to sublease is "light" compared with "buying and selling". Although the judgment of the court of second instance did not point out that "lifting weights as easily as possible", its legal thinking showed the bold application of the legal interpretation method of "lifting weights as easily as possible".

Third, the original lessor directly decides to accept the sublease contract. When the lease contract is terminated according to law and the sublessor loses the sublease right, the continued performance of the sublease contract will inevitably involve the change of the contract subject. As the cause of this case is mainly caused by Ai Yi Company's arrears of rent, the original intention of renting a house in Le Yi Village has not changed, and it will immediately rent the recovered 1, 2, 4 and 5 buildings to others, which can also be explained. Moreover, the sublease has obtained the consent of the lessor, and there is no disadvantage for the lessor to accept the contract instead of sublease. Accordingly, in order to prevent the sublease's lease right from being harmed by the change of the legal relationship between the lessor and the lessee, it is reasonable for the court of second instance to order the lessor and the sublease to continue to perform the sublease contract from the perspective of stabilizing the social and economic order.