Current location - Loan Platform Complete Network - Loan consultation - Case analysis of lease contract
Case analysis of lease contract
If the sale is not broken, the lease infringement will be judged.

After buying a house, the defendant forcibly cut off power, stopped water and changed locks to drive away the original tenant, causing losses to others, and the defendant went to court. On June 5438+1October 65438+February, 2005, suichuan county People's Court issued a verdict on this lease contract dispute case, and sentenced Qiu Nan to continue to perform the house lease contract signed by Guo Yanshan and Fang Qiu, and restore the water and electricity supply of the store, and compensate Guo Yanshan for economic losses of 4,000 yuan.

In July 2006, Guo Yanshan signed a house lease agreement with Fang Qiu, stipulating that Guo Yanshan would lease Fang Qiu's store in the county building materials market for 4 years. After the contract was signed, Guo Yanshan fulfilled the contract and paid all the rent. On June 5438+ 10, 2009, Fang Qiu's brother Qiu Nan went to Guo Yanshan's store and asked Guo Yanshan to move out of the store on the grounds that Fang Qiu had been transferred to him. Guo Yanshan refused to move out on the grounds that the lease term was not full. There was a quarrel between the two sides, and Qiu Nan forcibly removed the water inlet pipe and external power cord of the store and parked one of his cars in front of the store, which led to the store's power failure, water cut-off and blockade.

The court held through trial that the house lease agreement signed by Guo Yanshan and Fang Qiu on the basis of equality and voluntariness did not violate the relevant laws and regulations of the state and was legal and valid. The change of house ownership during the lease period does not affect the validity of the lease contract between Guo Yanshan and Fang Qiu. Defendant Qiu Nan took improper measures to hinder the normal operation of plaintiff Guo Yanshan and caused losses to the plaintiff, which was an infringement and should bear tort liability. The plaintiff's claim to continue to perform the contract with the defendant, remove obstacles and compensate for losses is legal and well-founded and should be supported. The court made the above judgment according to law.