A woman renting a house to open a funeral home was obstructed by villagers during renovation. The first-instance court ruled to terminate the contract, and the landlord was ordered to pay over 40,000 yuan in renovation costs.

Last November, a post-2000s woman surnamed Wang rented a storefront from a landlord surnamed Wei, planning to open a funeral supplies shop. However, during the renovation, local villagers stopped her. Wei, the landlord, also clearly told Wang to stop renovating and blocked her from carrying out normal renovation work on site. After that, Wang sued landlord Wei in court, requesting that the contract be rescinded and that Wei be ordered to compensate her for her renovation losses.

A reporter from Red Star News recently learned from the website of court judgments that, in the first instance, the People’s Court of Chengcheng County in Shaanxi Province ruled to rescind the contract between the two parties. Wei was ordered to refund Wang’s deposit and rent. At the same time, the court ordered landlord Wei to compensate Wang for her house renovation losses of 47,733.8 yuan.

The judgment document from the court of first instance shows that the court found: In November 2025, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a “House Lease Contract.” Under the contract, defendant Wei rented the premises in question to plaintiff Wang for the purpose of opening a shop. The lease term was from November 1, 2025 to November 1, 2026. The rent was 666 yuan per month; after consultation, the parties agreed to collect it at 8,000 yuan per year. The deposit was 600 yuan, and the full-year rent was to be paid before October 15 each year. The contract also provided that, if either party encountered special circumstances and wanted to take back the leased premises or end the lease early, it should first seek the other party’s opinion one month in advance. That month, some villagers in the area where the premises are located began blocking the plaintiff from renovating, preventing the plaintiff from engaging in funeral-related business activities in the leased house. After multiple rounds of negotiations among Wang, Wei, and the villagers who were blocking, the parties failed to reach an agreement on the matter. Later, defendant Wei explicitly told plaintiff Wang to stop renovating and blocked plaintiff from carrying out normal renovation work on site. Around November 11, 2025, the plaintiff stopped renovation. On January 28, 2026, the plaintiff returned the leased house and the house keys to the defendant, but the defendant did not accept them.

Schematic diagram from Tu Chuangjing

Wang believed that, because of the defendant’s actions, the purpose of the contract could not be achieved. Pursuant to Article 566 of the Civil Code, defendant Wei should refund the rent and deposit already paid by the plaintiff and compensate her for renovation losses of 55,723 yuan.

However, landlord Wei stated that the fundamental reason why Wang believed the contract could not continue to be performed came from interference by a third party—local villagers—and had nothing to do with him. Wei also said that he is still willing to perform the contract as agreed to date. Regarding matters related to the operation of the plaintiff’s shop, except for not moving the deceased into the shop, Wei would not interfere with the operation of other funeral supplies. In addition, Wei said he did not agree to compensate Wang for the renovation expenses, and he believed he had no fault and should not bear any compensation liability, adding that he himself was also the victim.

After trial, the court held that in this case, after defendant Wei delivered the leased property to plaintiff Wang, during the period when the plaintiff used the leased property for the agreed purpose (with the defendant’s consent, the plaintiff renovated the house), villagers and the defendant obstructed the plaintiff from renovating, and prevented the plaintiff from engaging in funeral services business, which caused the plaintiff to be unable to use the leased property normally, thereby making it impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract. The defendant obviously constituted a breach of contract. In addition, the court held that, after third-party villagers obstructed the plaintiff’s normal use of the leased property, the defendant, as the lessor, not only failed to remove the obstruction, but also obstructed the plaintiff from possessing and using the leased property, resulting in the plaintiff’s inability to achieve the purpose of the lease. The defendant therefore obviously violated the agreement and legal provisions between the two parties and constituted a breach of contract. Therefore, the court did not support the defendant’s said defense.

In the first-instance ruling, the People’s Court of Chengcheng County in Shaanxi Province ordered rescission of the contract between the two parties. Wei was ordered to refund Wang’s deposit and rent of 6,668 yuan. At the same time, the court ordered landlord Wei to compensate Wang for house renovation losses of 47,733.8 yuan.

Red Star News reporter: Fu Yao

Editor: Xu Yuan

Reviewer: He Xianju