Please recommend the relevant precedents of lease contract disputes.

On June 9, 1994, the plaintiff Yile Village and the defendant Yiai Company signed a contract, which stipulated that Yile Village would lease its six commercial buildings and empty space with a construction area of 2, square meters to Yiai Company to open Hangzhou Electronic City from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 224. In Yile Village, before September 3, 1994, the indoor floor tiles of six buildings were laid, the porcelain tiles were pasted on the external walls, the iron fence was surrounded, the concrete in the open space was leveled, and the road from Wensan Road to Electronic City was repaired. If it cannot be delivered after the deadline, it will be handled. The contract also stipulates the amount of rent, the time of delivery, the liability for breach of contract, and the conditions for contract modification and dissolution. After that, Yile Village delivered the above six commercial buildings to Yiai Company for use. Because Yile Village did not decorate the building and repair the access road according to the contract, Yiai Company built it at its own expense. On November 28th of the same year, Yile Village issued a letter of authorization, which clearly granted the lease right of six buildings stipulated in the contract to Yiai Company. The authorization period was from January 1st, 1995 to December 31st, 224, during which the house management and all legal responsibilities arising therefrom were borne by Yiai Company. On September 5, 1996, Yile Village signed a supplementary agreement with Yiai Company, and Yiai Company agreed that Yile Village would take back four commercial buildings, including No.1, No.2, No.4 and No.5, in the original contract, and the rent owed would be offset by the decoration and other investment funds of the four buildings. In the same month, both parties re-signed a lease contract, stipulating that Yile Village will lease 6,399 square meters of buildings No.3 and No.6 among the six commercial buildings to Yiai Company to open Hangzhou Electronic City, and the lease period will be from August 1, 1996 to December 31, 24; The monthly rent before December 31, 1996 was 12 yuan per square meter, and the original rent will be increased by 2 yuan every two years thereafter. Yiai Company pays the rent monthly, and Yile Village has the right to terminate the contract and recover the house if it is in arrears for more than two months. This contract shall come into effect after being signed and sealed by both parties, and the original lease contract shall be terminated at the same time. The rent agreed in the original contract shall be subject to the supplementary agreement signed by both parties on September 5. After the signing of the above supplementary agreement and contract, Yi 'ai Company returned the No.1, No.2, No.4 and No.5 buildings to Yi 'le Village, and handed over the list of its decoration, reconstruction and road repair expenses in the four buildings, totaling 4,617,263.3 yuan. Immediately, Yile Village subletted the above four buildings to others for use, but did not review the expense list submitted by Yiai Company. Yi 'ai Company rebuilt and added facilities to the rented No.3 and No.6 buildings (appraised value is 343,184 yuan), and successively entered into housing lease contracts with Wenxi Branch, Dapai Company, Rong Da Company and New Age Market, and delivered them to use. Among them, Yiai Company and New Times Market later signed an agreement, which stipulated that the first and second floors (parts) of Building No.3 rented by New Times Market were 12 square meters. Yiai Company agreed to return it to Yile Village from July 1, 1997, and Yile Village and New Times Market signed another lease agreement. However, the new era market has neither signed an agreement with Yile Village nor returned the rented business premises to Yile Village. On January 29th, 1999, Yile Village filed a lawsuit with the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court because of a dispute with Yiai Company over rent payment, decoration and road repair costs, requesting to terminate the house lease contract between the two parties, and ordered Yiai Company to pay the rent and interest of 8,32,878.49 yuan, and bear the legal costs.

Yiai Company filed a counterclaim, requesting that Yile Village pay 4, yuan for failing to decorate the building and repair the access road as agreed, and bear the legal costs.

[ gist of the judgment ]

In the course of trial, Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court added Dapai Company, Wenxi Branch, New Times Market and Rong Da Company as the third person in this case. After trial, Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court held that the supplementary agreement and lease contract signed by Yile Village and Yiai Company in September 1996 clearly stipulated the termination of the lease contract in June 1994. After taking back four buildings, Yile Village should entrust the relevant departments to audit the investment in renovation and reconstruction of Yiai Company to offset the rent of Yiai Company. However, Yile Village failed to perform as agreed, and then rented out four buildings to others and rebuilt them, which made it impossible to audit now. The losses caused by this should be borne by Yile Village. However, Yiai Company failed to pay the rent as agreed, which constituted a breach of contract. Yile Village requested to terminate the lease relationship accordingly, and Yiai Company paid the rent in arrears for just reasons and supported it. In view of both parties' breach of contract during the performance of the contract, they shall bear corresponding responsibilities. After the lease relationship between Yile Village and Yiai Company is terminated, Yiai Company shall return the house, as well as Wenxi Branch, Dapai Company, Rong Da Company and New Age Market. According to Articles 111 and 113 of the General Principles of the People's Republic of China and the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the court made the following judgments on February 2, 2:

1. The lease contract signed by Yile Village and Yiai Company in September 1996 was terminated.

2. Yi 'ai Company, New Age Market, Rong Da Company, Dapai Company and Wenxi Branch Office will return their buildings No.3 and No.6 located in Yile Village on the north side of Wensan Road in Hangzhou to Yile Village within one month after the judgment takes effect.

iii. yi' ai company paid 6,394,276 yuan (from January 1, 1995 to January 31, 2, after deducting the rent paid) to the house in yi' le village within 1 days after the judgment came into effect.

iv. Yile Village shall pay the investment fund of 3,464,276.2 yuan for the renovation and roads of Buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Yiai Company within 1 days after the judgment takes effect.

5. New Era Market will pay 551, yuan for the use of the house in Yile Village within 1 days after the judgment takes effect (from July 1, 1997 to January 31, 2).

(II) Effectiveness of sublease contract and change of contract subject

The first and second trials supported Yile Village's claim and agreed to terminate the performance of the lease contract. However, after the lease contract is terminated, what is the effect of the sublease contract and should it continue to be performed? The opinions of the courts of first instance and second instance were different. Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court ordered the termination of the lease contract of Yile Village and Yiai Company according to the provisions of "two months' rent arrears to terminate the contract and recover the house". In addition to the lessee Yiai Company, the houses occupied by the sub-lessees Wenxi Branch, Dapai Company, Rong Da Company and New Age Market should also be returned. That is to say, the validity of the lease contract extends to the sublease contract. When the lease contract is terminated, the sublease contract is also terminated. There is nothing wrong with this treatment from the perspective of the lease contract alone, but the rights of the sub-lessee are unreasonably damaged, which is worthy of scrutiny. After trial, the Zhejiang Higher People's Court of the second instance denied the judgment of subletting in the first instance, and decided to continue to perform the subletting contract, and Yile Village replaced Yiai Company to take over the rights and obligations of the contract. It should be said that the judgment of the second instance is quite groundbreaking.

first, if the lease contract is terminated, the effectiveness of the sublease contract does not automatically terminate. In the above situation, there is no explicit provision in the law on the effectiveness of the sublease contract. Although Yile Village once granted the "lease right" of the house to Yiai Company in writing, it was not improper for Yiai Company to sublet the house and the third party to rent the house, but the new lease contract signed by Yile Village and Yiai Company later stipulated that "the house was repossessed in arrears for two months". It can be seen from the provisions of the contract that Yile Village authorized Yiai Company to sublet the house unconditionally, and the court of first instance ordered it to repossess the house accordingly. However, the problem is that the sublease contract is established according to law and is being performed, and the contractual rights of the sublessee should also be equally protected by law. From the perspective of the source of rights, whether it is a lease or a sublease contract, its ultimate right comes from the lessor's legitimate right to use and benefit from the leased property. In this case, Yile Village leased the house to Yiai Company, which is a punishment for the lessor's right to use the house. In the case of "arrears of rent" by Yi 'ai Company, the court legally terminates the validity of the lease contract according to the agreement of both parties, which is a kind of protection for the lessor's right to use the leased property. The sublessor in the sublease contract is also the lessee in the lease contract. According to the relevant provisions of the contract law, the lessee may sublet the leased property to a third party with the consent of the lessor; If the lessee sublets without the consent of the lessor, the lessor may terminate the contract. It can be seen that the reason why the sublease contract was established is based on the lessor's authorization to the lessee. Without the lessor's permission, the sublease behavior is invalid. In this sense, it is an extension of the lessor's will to lease the house according to the sublease contract, which is in line with the lessor's interests. Even if the lease contract is terminated due to the lessee's breach of contract, the sub-lessee will continue to use the leased property and perform relevant obligations as agreed in the sub-lease contract, which will not infringe on the lessor's rights and interests. From the perspective of equity, on the one hand, the sub-lessee has occupied and used the leased property within the agreed time and space latitude, and has fully fulfilled its due obligations as stipulated in the sub-lease contract; On the other hand, the lessor clearly agrees to sublease; Furthermore, the continued lease by the sub-lessee will not harm the interests previously expected by the lessor, so it is in line with the principle of fairness in civil law to maintain the effectiveness of the sub-lease contract for the sub-lessee. If the sublease contract is terminated with the termination of the lease contract, then the sub-lessee's right to use the house will always be changing, and the security of the transaction will be destroyed. If it follows, it will affect the stability of market order, and it is also inconsistent with the judicial trend of "real right" of leasehold right in the world today. The court of second instance comprehensively considered the agreement of the two lease contracts, the true meaning of the parties at the time when the contract was concluded, and ordered the unfulfilled sublease contract not to be affected by the termination of the lease contract, according to the principle of good faith in civil law and from the perspective of stabilizing the market economic order and ensuring the safety of transactions. This judgment not only deal with that legal relationship between the lessor and the lessee according to law, but also properly protect the interests of the sub-lessee in the sublease relationship and maintain the order of the market, which is a "flexible" application of the law and is worthy of approval.

second, the application of the legal interpretation method of "lifting weights to make things clear". As a method of legal interpretation, it is also a basic argument in legal logic. The way of reasoning is: "Still … of course"; The so-called "heavy" and "light" refer to the leniency of its legal requirements or the breadth and narrowness of its legal effects. Although there is no explicit provision in the current law on how to apply the law to the cases involved in this case, Article 119 of the Supreme Court's Opinions on Implementing the General Principles of the People's Republic of China and the Civil Law (for Trial Implementation) and Article 229 of the Contract Law clearly stipulate that "buying and selling shall not break the lease". Of course, this case does not belong to the case of "buying and selling shall not break the lease", but according to the law of "lifting weights to make it clear and light" That is, "the sale does not break the lease, and the lease contract is of course terminated ...", and in this case, the lessor agreed to sublease, which is "light" compared with "sale". Although the judgment of the court of second instance didn't point out that "lifting weights to be light", its legal thinking showed the bold application of the legal interpretation method of "lifting weights to be light".

Third, it is directly decided that the original lessor will inherit the sublease contract. In the case that the lease contract is terminated according to law and the sublessor loses the right to sublease, the continued performance of the sublease contract will inevitably involve the change of the contract subject. As the cause of this case is mainly caused by the arrears of rent by Yiai Company, the original intention of renting houses in Yile Village has not changed, and the buildings No.1, No.2, No.4 and No.5 that it will recover will be rented out to others immediately, which can also be explained. Moreover, the sublease has obtained the consent of the lessor, and there is no disadvantage for the lessor to replace the sublease to accept the contract. Accordingly, in order to prevent the sublease's lease right from being endangered by the change of the legal relationship between the lessor and the lessee, it is reasonable for the court of second instance to order the lessor and the sublease to continue to perform the sublease contract from the perspective of stabilizing the social and economic order.