It is understood that the tenant Xiao Wang rented an 800-square-meter house from the landlord Lao Gao in jimei district, and both parties signed a house lease contract. Xiao Wang paid Lao Gao a performance bond of 20,000 yuan, less than the bond agreed by Wang when the contract expired.
Xiao Wang rented the house and renovated it, adding glass doors, partitions, bathrooms, kitchens and corresponding water and electricity pipelines. After the lease expired, Xiao Wang continued to use the rented house for two months and paid the rent. 2065438+On July 29th, 2006, Xiao Wang telephoned Lao Gao to take over the house and return the deposit.
At that time, Lao Gao asked Xiao Wang to dismantle the partition wall first, otherwise he did not agree to accept the house. Later, Xiao Wang mailed the key to the house to Lao Gao. Lao Gao sent a text message to Xiao Wang, suggesting that the house should be repaired as soon as possible. He also urged Xiao Wang to rent the house.
Unexpectedly, Xiao Wang then took the landlord Lao Gao to court. Xiao complained that after the lease expired, Lao Gao refused to handle the handover and did not refund the deposit. Therefore, he sued the court for a refund of the deposit.
After Xiao Wang sued, Lao Gao also filed a counterclaim, demanding that Xiao Wang compensate for the loss of rent and the cost of restoring the house to its original state. Lao Gao believes that during the lease period, Xiao Wang's unauthorized decoration caused damage to the house and should be restored to its original state.
The court organized both parties to inspect the house site. Xiao Wang suggested that the decoration was approved by Lao Gao, so the decoration part already belongs to Lao Gao. If Lao Gao thinks it is necessary to dismantle it, he can dismantle it himself.
Later, Lao Gao handed over the house to the decoration company for demolition, and the contract agreed that the construction period would be 20 days. The construction project includes removing the partition wall and ceiling of Xiao Wangjia and repainting the ceiling and walls of the whole house.
The court held through trial that although Xiao Wang advocated that the decoration was approved by Lao Wang, he did not provide evidence, and Lao Gao also raised objections to the decoration. Therefore, the court found that Xiao Wang's decoration was "without Lao Gao's consent". Because Xiao Wang made it clear in court that he did not agree to demolish the above decoration by himself, Lao Gao has restored the house to its original state by himself, claiming that the lessee should compensate for the restoration expenses, which is in line with the law. Therefore, at the discretion of the court, the reasonable cost of restoring the house to its original state is 1.5 million yuan.
Regarding the rent and use fee of the occupied house, the court held that Xiao Wang failed to restore the house to its original state in time, which made it impossible to rent it out separately, which would indeed cause certain rent losses to Lao Gao, and he should pay a reasonable rent loss with reference to the contract.
In the end, the first-instance judgment found that after deducting the deposit of 20,000 yuan from Lao Gao, Xiao Wang should also pay compensation of more than 2,000 yuan from Lao Gao.
The judge's statement
Tenants who decorate without consent should bear the responsibility (the above answer was issued on 20 18-02-07, and the current relevant purchase policy should be based on the actual situation).
For more real estate information, policy interpretation and expert interpretation, click to view.