CNY 960 Rent Lease Dispute Leads to Eviction Order
A landlord in Eastern China City sought to evict a tenant after a five-year lease expired, alleging the tenant had sublet the property and refused to vacate. The court ordered the tenant to return the premises but denied the landlord’s claim for monthly use fees due to lack of supporting evidence. The case turned on the terms of the written lease and the tenant’s failure to prove an alleged oral promise that he could live in the property indefinitely.
The plaintiff, Eastern China City Urban Construction Asset Management Co., Ltd., entered into a rental agreement with the defendant, Mr. Luo, on July 19, 2006. The agreement covered a roughly 36-37 square meter apartment in the Zifu residential complex, with a lease term of five years ending July 18, 2011. The annual rent was CNY 960, payable semi-annually. The contract expressly prohibited subletting, reassignment, or using the premises as collateral. Mr. Luo paid all rent on time during the lease term. Before the lease ended, the plaintiff sent several notices and lawyer letters in 2011, informing Mr. Luo that the apartment would not be re-let and requesting him to vacate within a week after expiry. Mr. Luo refused, claiming that a former company manager, Mr. Sun, had promised him the right to live in the unit for life. The plaintiff then sued for eviction and sought CNY 1,000 per month in use fees for the period from July 19, 2011 to March 18, 2012.
At trial, both parties presented their evidence. The plaintiff submitted the lease agreement, the written notices, and the lawyer letters. The defendant testified about the company’s restructuring history and his status as a “co-insured” employee. He claimed that Mr. Sun had orally assured him he could stay in the apartment indefinitely. However, Mr. Luo provided no documentary proof of this promise, nor did he call Mr. Sun as a witness. The plaintiff argued that the monthly use fee of CNY 1,000 reflected market rates, but offered no comparable rental data or appraisal. The court noted that the defendant had paid all rent due under the lease and that the plaintiff’s own notices clearly stated the lease would not be renewed.
The court found that the lease had expired by its own terms and that the defendant had no legal right to remain in the property. Under Article 235 of the Contract Law, a lessee must return the premises when the lease term ends. The defendant’s affirmative defense—that an oral promise overrode the written contract—failed for lack of evidence. The court also held that the plaintiff’s request for CNY 1,000 per month in use fees was unsupported. The plaintiff did not provide any market survey, expert opinion, or comparable lease data to justify that amount. Consequently, the court granted the eviction order but denied the claim for use fees.
Legally, the case underscores the primacy of written contract terms in lease disputes. The written lease clearly stated the five-year term and the prohibition on subletting. Even if a company representative made an oral assurance, such a promise would likely be unenforceable without written modification, especially when the lease itself contained an explicit term limiting the tenancy. The burden of proof rested on the defendant to corroborate his claim, and he failed to meet it. Additionally, the plaintiff’s failure to substantiate its damages claim highlights a common pitfall: a landlord seeking compensation for holdover occupancy must present objective evidence of fair market rent.
This ruling reinforces the principle that lease agreements end on the stated date unless both parties agree otherwise in writing. Tenants who rely on informal assurances from former managers risk losing their homes when those assurances are not recorded. Landlords, meanwhile, must be prepared to prove their damages with concrete evidence if they seek holdover rent. The court allocated litigation costs, ordering the plaintiff to pay CNY 570 and the defendant to pay CNY 4,000 of the total CNY 4,570 in case acceptance fees. The defendant was given 15 days to appeal, but he did not file within that period.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.