15,000 Yuan Land Sublease Contract Dispute: Court Rejects Termination After 7 Years of Performance

A farmer in a northeastern province sued to terminate a 15-year land sublease agreement, claiming the tenant failed to pay the full first installment and that the contract lacked provisions for agricultural subsidies. The court denied the request after finding the tenant had faithfully performed payment obligations for eight consecutive years.

In 2004, the farmer’s son signed a five-year land sublease contract with the tenant, transferring 7.2 acres of family farmland for a total fee of 5,000 yuan. The tenant paid the full amount to the farmer’s son as agreed. In April 2005, the farmer and the tenant signed a supplementary contract extending the lease for an additional ten years at 1,000 yuan per year, bringing the total lease period to 15 years through December 2019.

The farmer argued that when the tenant paid the initial 5,000 yuan to his son, a third party deducted 1,500 yuan, meaning the tenant only paid 3,500 yuan rather than the full amount. The farmer claimed this constituted a breach justifying contract termination. The farmer also complained that the contract did not specify who should receive government agricultural direct subsidies, which the tenant had been collecting throughout the lease period.

The court examined the evidence and found that the 2005 supplementary contract explicitly confirmed the tenant had paid the full 5,000 yuan to the farmer’s son. Since the farmer had signed this confirmation himself, the court rejected the claim that the tenant underpaid. Furthermore, the tenant had continued paying the annual 1,000 yuan extension fee for eight consecutive years without default, demonstrating faithful contract performance.

Regarding the agricultural subsidies, the court noted that under relevant regulations, when no specific agreement addresses subsidy allocation, subsidies belong to the actual cultivator of the land. Since the tenant was the one farming the land, his receipt of the subsidies was proper. The court also dismissed a minor discrepancy between the contracted 7 acres and the registered 7.2 acres, finding both parties agreed on the specific plots and boundaries. The farmer’s request for contract termination was denied, and he was ordered to bear the 50 yuan court fee.