Compiled from: Huaiyin District Court

Is it acceptable for a landlord to lock the door of a rental property to demand overdue rent from a tenant? Who bears the losses caused by the door being locked during this period?

Case Review

Qian rented a house owned by Wang, and both parties signed a house lease agreement stipulating: the lease term is from June 1, 2022, to May 31, 2023, with a monthly rent of 2,000 yuan, payable quarterly; if Qian defaults on rent for more than two months, Wang has the right to terminate the contract and demand Qian to pay a penalty of 2,000 yuan. After paying the first quarter's rent of 6,000 yuan, Qian failed to pay the rent as agreed. Wang repeatedly demanded payment without success, so on June 1, 2023, Wang locked the house and notified Qian to vacate the premises within three days. However, because Wang did not unlock the door, Qian was unable to move out on time, and it was not until July 10, 2023, when Wang unlocked the door, that Qian cleared out the belongings. Wang believed that Qian's failure to vacate on time caused losses, including penalties, when Wang rented the house to someone else and could not deliver it on time. Therefore, Wang sued Qian in Huaiyin District Court, requesting a judgment ordering Qian to pay the overdue rent of 18,000 yuan, a penalty of 2,000 yuan, and compensation for losses of 5,000 yuan from June 1, 2023, to July 10, 2023, due to the delayed vacating.

Qian argued that the rent arrears were due to business difficulties caused by the pandemic, and according to national policies, Wang should reduce some rent and penalties. Moreover, the delayed vacating was caused by Wang locking the door, so the losses should not be borne by Qian.

The two main points of dispute in this case are: first, whether Qian should pay the overdue rent of 18,000 yuan and the penalty of 2,000 yuan; second, whether Qian should compensate for the losses from the delayed vacating.

After trial, the court held that the "House Lease Contract" signed by Qian and Wang represented the true intentions of both parties, did not violate mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations, and should be legally valid. Both parties should exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations according to the contract.

Regarding the first point of dispute, the contract stipulated that Qian would rent Wang's house for one year at a monthly rent of 2,000 yuan. Qian had paid three months' rent, leaving nine months totaling 18,000 yuan unpaid, which Qian should pay to Wang. The contract explicitly stated that if rent arrears exceeded two months, a penalty of 2,000 yuan should be paid. Qian had defaulted on rent for nearly a year, so he should bear the liability for breach of contract as agreed. Qian claimed that due to the pandemic's impact, his business faced difficulties, and requested a reduction in some rent and penalties. Wang disagreed. The court found that, according to the "Guiding Opinions on Further Supporting Small and Micro Enterprises and Individual Businesses in the Service Industry to Alleviate Rent Pressure in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic" (Document No. 734 [2020] of the National Development and Reform Commission), Article 2, Paragraph 3, the house in question was non-state-owned. National policies for such properties mainly encourage landlords to reduce or defer rent collection based on equal negotiation between both parties, and these policies are only advisory, not mandatory. Since Wang, as the landlord, did not agree to Qian's reduction request, and Qian did not provide evidence of the pandemic's actual impact on his business, the court did not accept Qian's claim.

Regarding the second point of dispute, Wang requested Qian to pay 5,000 yuan for losses caused by delayed vacating of the premises. Based on the WeChat chat records submitted by both parties, it is evident that Qian's failure to vacate promptly was due to Wang locking the house and failing to unlock it even after Qian requested Wang to do so for moving out. The resulting losses shall be borne by Wang. As the lessor of the property in question, Wang was required to ensure timely delivery of the property when intending to re-lease it. However, Wang re-leased the property before the handover was completed, leading to an inability to deliver, for which Wang should bear corresponding responsibility. Therefore, the court does not support this claim by Wang.

Ultimately, the Huaiyin District Court legally ruled that Qian must pay Wang 18,000 yuan in rent and 2,000 yuan in liquidated damages, and dismissed Wang's other claims. After the judgment was rendered, neither party appealed, and the judgment has now taken effect.

Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

Article 562

The parties may rescind the contract upon mutual agreement. The parties may agree on the grounds for one party to rescind the contract. When the agreed grounds for rescission occur, the party entitled to rescind may rescind the contract.

　Article 577

If one party fails to perform its contractual obligations or performs them in a manner inconsistent with the agreement, it shall bear liability for breach, such as continuing performance, taking remedial measures, or compensating for losses.

Article 579

If one party fails to pay the price, remuneration, rent, interest, or fails to perform other monetary obligations, the other party may request payment.

[4] Author's Opinion

Disputes over house lease contracts are common in daily life, often arising from a lack of communication and legal awareness between the parties. To prevent and reduce such disputes, it is essential to clarify the rights and obligations of both parties. A house lease contract is an agreement where the lessor delivers the property to the lessee for use and benefit, and the lessee pays rent. During the performance of the contract, the lessee is obligated to pay rent as agreed, while the lessor is responsible for maintaining the property suitable for its intended use. Delayed or deficient rent payment by the lessee constitutes a breach, requiring liability for breach of contract as agreed. If the lease contract is terminated for this reason, the lessee must promptly vacate and return the property to the lessor, and the lessor should cooperate with the vacating and acceptance. Additionally, when disputes arise, the parties should communicate promptly, negotiate actively, and cooperate with each other. If one party breaches, the non-breaching party should not only seek legal remedies but also take appropriate measures to prevent loss expansion; otherwise, compensation for expanded losses cannot be claimed. Self-help measures such as locking doors, cutting off water or electricity, or unauthorized removal carry significant legal risks and should be avoided. In this case, the lessor locked the leased property after the lease term expired and, despite the lessee's request to unlock for moving out, failed to do so, preventing timely vacating. The resulting losses shall be borne by the lessor.