Is it okay for a landlord to rent the same house to the tenant because he sells the house, and fulfi

It doesn't matter if the owner is selling the house or anything else, it mainly depends on what is stated in the rental contract. Generally speaking, these are considered breaches, and renting a house of the same grade is not the point here at all, the point is that the tenant does not agree to such a treatment.

If the landlord rents the house to the tenant, then he has no right to sell the house. Now, if you rent a house of the same grade to a tenant, you need to negotiate with the tenant, if the other party agrees, it is okay, but the other party does not agree, then you have to bear the liability for breach of contract.

As long as you agree, I think there is no problem, but if the tenant thinks it is inappropriate, then she must feel that there is a problem with the agreement, so it only depends on your agreement, if you disagree, if you want to agree, there is no problem.

In accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, the sale does not break the lease. As long as the tenant does not agree to terminate the tenancy, the tenancy contract must continue to be performed. If the buyer accepts this condition, then the deal can be closed.

If the buyer doesn't accept it, it can't be sold. As for saying that the landlord wants to terminate the lease contract with the tenant, that is a breach of contract, and the proposed solution, if the tenant agrees, there is no problem, if the tenant does not agree, then it is necessary to follow the contract to see what responsibility needs to be borne for breach of contract.

If the tenant agrees, of course, there is no problem, if she refuses, then you have no way to drive him away, and if you want to let him go, you will be liable for breach of contract.

Negotiate with the tenant and it is generally fine.

As a lawyer, I feel that it is necessary to use the law to protect my rights and interests in this situation.

According to the law, "the sale does not break the lease":

1) First of all, you can refuse to quit the rent, you can continue to live during the lease contract, and the new landlord has no right to ask you to quit the rent;

2) Secondly, if you don't want to get involved with the new landlord, you can ask the new landlord to find the original landlord to solve the matter, don't come to you, the new landlord has no legal relationship with you, you can completely ignore it.

3) The final compensation is to find the original landlord to compensate, and the original landlord breaches the contract. If the original landlord doesn't compensate, you don't have to quit the rent and you don't have to pay attention to the new landlord.

4) If the new landlord forcibly breaks into the house or finds someone to enter the house for decoration, you can first call the police, during the lease period, you are the legal user of the house, and the new landlord has no right to enter the house without your consent; Second, you can also ask the new landlord to compensate you for your losses, which is also a tort.

In fact, there is only one point that is most important in the facts of the case you mentioned, and that is"Buying and selling does not break the lease".。As long as you know the principle of "buying and selling does not break the lease", you can knowDuring the lease period, if the ownership of the house is transferred due to sale, inheritance, gift, etc., it will not affect the tenant's possession and use of the house。Also, if a new landlord forcibly enters the rental property, it may also constitute a tort against you, and you can hold them accountable.

From the above discussion, it can be seen that the new landlord has no right to let you leave at all, and it is okay if you don't leave.

So what is "buying and selling without breaking the lease"?

Article 229 of the Contract Law stipulates that "if the ownership of the leased property changes during the lease period, the validity of the lease contract shall not be affected".

Article 11 of the Measures for the Administration of Urban Housing Leasing also stipulates that "if the lessor transfers the ownership of the house during the lease term, the transferee of the house shall continue to perform the provisions of the original lease contract".

Generally speaking, the so-called "sale does not break the lease" means that the property rights of the house have changed due to inheritance, gift, sale and other reasons during the lease period, and the original house lease contract continues to be valid for the new owner, and the new owner has the right to claim the rent, but he cannot directly exercise possession and use of the house, nor can he claim that the house is already his own, and the lease contract signed by the original owner and the tenant has no right to dispose of it.

In fact, a right in rem is a right of a higher order than a creditor's right, and enjoys a natural priority in the bundle of rights in rem of the house, and has the exclusive power to exclude the expression of the will of others. The corresponding rank of the creditor's right is lower, and it cannot be repaid in priority, nor can it be claimed to exclude the expression of intent of others.

In the final analysis, a housing lease is actually a creditor's rights contract, but considering that the housing lease affects the tenant's basic rights such as life stability and happiness, the legislation gives the housing lease a real right to claim a real right, which can be opposed to the real right of the house transferee - ownership.

The above means that you do not need to quit the lease and can continue to lease until the lease contract expires.

Next, let's talk about who you should pay for if you quit the lease.

Depending on the relativity of the contract, your lease contract is with the original ownerThe original homeowner's liability for the defective warranty of the leased property, that is, there is no problem in the quality of the guaranteed house, and there is no defect in the ownership and other aspects of the guaranteed house. During the existence of the lease contract, the original owner sells the house and loses his ownership of the house, at this time, the house he leases to you is already not entitled to dispose of, and there are defects in the rights, which constitutes a breach of contract, so you can ask him to bear the liability for breach of contract.

It is worth mentioning that, according to the Contract Law, a lease contract of more than 6 months shall be signed in writing, and the failure to sign a contract shall be regarded as an indefinite contract, and the other party may have the right to terminate the contract at will. If this is the case for you, you should terminate the contract as soon as the other party claims to rescind the contract, and accordingly, you will lose your right to claim compensation.

If the landlord rents out the house, he is not allowed to bring people to see or sell the house during the period. This kind of thing is a tort issue, the landlord has no reason to let you leave, and we can rely on the law to protect our rights and interests.

First of all, you have a contract. If the date above has not expired, you can continue to rent. He does not affect your right to use. If he forcibly enters your room, it has already constituted a tort against you, and you can make him liable accordingly.

This copy of the situation to find the original landlord, if bai

You sign the contract, and he resells the house during the contract period, which causes you to have nowhere to go, then he has violated the contract and needs to compensate you, you have to remember that it is he who violates the contract, not you, you can protect your own interests, and you have the right to continue living without affecting the new landlord.

The tenant should claim compensation from the original landlord, because the contract with the original landlord is signed when renting the property, and there can be no buying and selling during the contract period. The moment the contract is signed, the legal benefits come into play, if the new landlord forcibly enters the rental house, you can sue him for infringement on you, and she will also be liable for the corresponding damages.

According to the national housing sales policy, the unexpired housing lease contract is related to the expiration of the contract after the sale of the house. The tenant's permission and consent are not required to buy or sell the house, but no matter who he sells to, the lease contract you sign with him is valid, and it will be terminated when the contract expires.

If the landlord is willing to compensate you according to the contract, and you agree, then you can also terminate the lease and you move to vacate the house for the new landlord.

If the new landlord asks the tenant to quit the lease before the contract expires, he should ask the new landlord for compensation, because this law stipulates that the new landlord will also transfer certain legal responsibilities when taking over the house, but the old landlord should also inform the new landlord of the rental situation, otherwise he will also bear some responsibility.

This should be negotiated with the old landlord and the new landlord, after all, no one wants to suffer when it comes to money, so it is more appropriate to discuss it together.

Everyone else has rented a house for you, you have a place to live, what is the violation! It's good to be a little kind, and it's a last resort for people to sell their houses. Let's understand people, of course, moving is hard for you.

It is a breach of contract. If you don't break the contract, what house will you rent him?

Negotiate and settle, or implement it according to the contract.

Thank you for your question.

Whether it is a breach of contract depends on whether there are clear terms in the housing lease contract.

If there is no agreement, then the two parties can negotiate a settlement, and I personally think that it is reasonable for the landlord to rent the same grade of house to the tenant, or refund the rent, and pay the moving expenses as appropriate.

This is a breach of contract, such as the tenant does not agree and has no power to force.

The tenant can refuse to allow the landlord to show the property, and during the rental period, the landlord only has ownership rights in your possession and use, and his rights are limited to the scope of the rental contract and the relevant legal provisions. If there is no agreement between you to allow him to visit, then he has no right. Therefore, if the landlord wants to show someone, he can ask for your consent first, but he can't bring someone directly.

If there is an agreement, or if the tenancy contract stipulates a refusal to view, the landlord may refuse to take someone to see the property. If it is a special circumstance (going out, it is really inconvenient, etc.), it can be reasonably refused, but if it is to prevent the landlord from refusing to view the property, you will bear some responsibility. The tenant has the right of first refusal, and if the tenant is sure to buy the house, he can completely refuse the landlord to show the property, and the tenant has the greatest priority.

If there are no provisions, the landlord retains ownership of the property and has the right to transfer the property, which can be reasonably viewed, and the tenant is obliged to cooperate. If the property changes hands during the rental period, the new landlord will need to continue renting the house to you until the end of the contract, otherwise compensation will be paid. Tenants have the right to ask the landlord to give them some reasonable compensation for their cooperation in viewing the property.

The landlord can offer it himself when showing it. (For example, 50 yuan for a look).

The general principle is: there is an agreement from the agreement, there is no agreement from the law, and there is no law from the custom.

There is no agreement in the contract between the two parties, and there is no special provision in the law, so it should be judged by the transaction customs. At the same time, the Contract Law also stipulates the principles of good faith and fairness.

On the one hand, after the house is rented, the tenant has obtained the right to use the house, and the landlord is not allowed to enter without permission, let alone bring others in.

On the other hand, the landlord still retains ownership of the house and has the right to transfer the house. The need to look at the property before buying a house is a well-known transaction habit (although it is not for both parties to the lease, but both parties to the lease know it). At the same time, tenants have the right of first refusal.

If other potential buyers are not allowed to view the property, the tenant's priority will be further unreasonably magnified, effectively eliminating or limiting competition from other buyers.

Therefore, the tenant should cooperate with the tenant if the conditions are met.

Depending on the situation, there are several extreme cases:

1. The landlord will definitely not support the three watches in the middle of the night with 50 people to see the house.

2. The landlord brings people to see the house every day, and he will definitely not support it.

3. The landlord has repeatedly hoped to bring someone who has already had the intention to close the house to see the house during normal time, but for up to half a year, the tenant has always refused on the grounds of "inconvenience" and "lack of availability", and he does not buy it, I think it should be supported.

If the lawsuit goes to court, it is decided by the judge's free will. First of all, we will try to mediate, for example, the tenant will meet the needs of the housekeeper by taking photos and videos; If mediation fails, the landlord will be allowed to appropriately take people to observe the area, orientation, lighting, and room type of the house, but try not to enter the room as much as possible.

Attached: Article 61 of the Contract Law.

After the contract takes effect, if the parties have not agreed on the quality, price or remuneration, place of performance, etc., or the agreement is not clear, they may supplement it by agreement; If a supplementary agreement cannot be reached, it shall be determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the contract or transaction customs.

The landlord has the right to dispose of his own property, which is a kind of disposal behavior, and the intermediary taking someone to see the house is a part of the disposal behavior. You can communicate with the agent and ask the other party to try not to affect their own life in terms of time rhythm and number of people when taking people to see the property.

With the middle of July just around the corner, I'm afraid you'll have to find a home for yourself all over again. Don't dwell too much on these details.

Generally speaking, buying and selling does not break the lease, but the landlord does a good job.

It's not legal, but I think the owner can do it.

Is it legal for the landlord to sell the house and rent a better house to the tenant? It is legal to rent another good house with the consent of both parties.

It's unreasonable, but it's a hassle for you to deal with because you're subletting from another tenant. It is not a direct lease relationship with the landlord. Even if you sign a rental agreement with the tenant, it is useless, the house is not the tenant's, he doesn't count.

The landlord says take it, you don't have the right to speak.

The stipulations are the same as the tenant's right of first refusal, you have not notified the tenant in writing, and the tenant has waived the evidence.

Therefore, under the same conditions**, tenants can buy first.

The suggestion is that you and the buyer agree to inform the tenant to increase the price.

For example, if you and the buyer agree on a deal of 500,000 yuan, and the tenant doesn't want to buy it, you will say to the buyer that you two will make a deal for 100 yuan. If the tenant wants to buy it, he can, sell it to him for 1 million.