The Analysis Of The Case Of The Force Of Law Of Housing Rental Registered

Zhaoxu company in Shanghai rented Binhe company’s house, while Zhaoxu subleased itto Linzhou company after receiving Binhe’s supporting. Due to Linzhou did not pay rentals toZhaoxu, Zhaoxu took it to court. However, Linzhou replied that the contract is not registeredfor the record, so it is invalid. The focu of controversy in this case is that what the contractwithout the registration for the record is. The courts of first and second instance recognizedthat the contract is legal and supported the plaintiff’s claim.There are several theoretical problems in the case. First of all, for the nature of the rentalright, theory community claims that it is property rights, claims or claims rem. The reasons ofclaims are that it is on the basis of the lease contract and it’s legal basis is Contract Law. Thereasons of property rights are that the lessee can control the house directly, that the lessee hasthe force of law of against other rights, and that the lessee enjoys the right of protectingpossession. The claims rem views that the rental right in essence is claims, but national policygive the disadvantaged lessee more legal protection. I agree with it. Secondly, for the changeof purpose of rental housing registration and improvement, it is administrative approval andadministrative tax firstly in our country. But, It has the function of publicity. I views that itshould be registered with real estate. Finally, I clams that only the registered contract has legaleffect of against others.There were some problems on courts in the case. The judgmental reason of the court offirst instance is insufficient. The court of first instance removed the contract, but it’s reasonis error. The court’s judgment of second instance according to local regulations is wrong.Finally, through the phenomenon that the Supreme Court’s judicial interpretation is conflictedto the departmental regulations, I views that the law must balance the confliction of interest.