| The right of habitation system has the dual functions of security and investment.It not only helps to solve the rigid needs of unable buyers in residence,but also creatively expands the financing channels and property utilization methods of house owners.The right of habitation for indemnificatory continues the human servitude attribute with the traditional protection of the weak as the core.Its establishment can be agreed by both parties through contract or established by the court through judgment.It focuses on the characteristics of gratuitous,exclusive,non transferable and inheritance in the design of legal provisions,and embodies a strong humanistic color.The right of habitation for investment pays more attention to various forms of property utilization,embodies the property right attribute with autonomy of will as the core,and provides a new form of right for the housing transaction market.The Civil Code focuses on the principle guidance of the right of habitation system.From the perspective of interpretation,there is a certain conflict between the existing norms of the right of habitation system and its functional orientation.Firstly,The scope of the subject and object of different habitation is not clear.Among them,the subject of the right of habitation for indemnificatory is relatively single,while the subject of the right of habitation for investment is too limited.The legislation of Civil Code also has the problem of unclear definition of the object of habitation.Secondly,The reasons for the extinction of different residency rights are relatively narrow.The reason for the elimination of the right of habitation for indemnificatory is too simple to cover the situation in life.The reason for the elimination of the right of habitation for investment is lack of flexibility.Private autonomy should be allowed more,and the occurrence of the reason for termination should be stipulated by the parties through the right of habitation contract.Thirdly,The transfer provisions of different residency rights are too absolute.Although the house with the right of residence can be rented when the parties have agreed,there is a lack of specific contract norms to guide the parties in the case of the right of habitation for indemnificatory,which may lead to the problem of unclear rights and obligations of the lessee and the right of habitation.The absolute prohibition of transfer imposes great restrictions on the function of the right of habitation for investment.In order to accurately apply the norms of the right of habitation system and form a consensus,the above problems need to be clarified and expanded through legal interpretation.First of all,on the premise of distinguishing the dual functions of the right of habitation,clarify the scope of the subject and object of the right of non cohabitation.For the right of affordable residence,it is necessary to accept others to live together with the consent of the owner,while the right of habitation for investment should not be subject to too many restrictions.On the issue of defining the object scope of the right of habitation,in order to expand the scope of application of the right of habitation,we should clarify the object scope of the right of habitaiton,which should be considered by the parties and judges according to the actual situation.Secondly,enrich the reasons for the elimination of the right of non cohabitation,seek the balance of interests between the right of habitation and the owner,and realize the legislative purpose of the right of habitation system.Finally,improve the contract norms for the rental of affordable housing,and clarify the transferability of investment housing.In practice,a three-party agreement can be concluded between the owner of the right of habitation and the owner and the transferee of the right of habitation to cancel the original right of habitation first,and then let the owner set up a new right of habitation on the house for the transferee,so as to realize the transfer of investment housing right. |
