On May 10, 2025, Xiao Wang (pseudonym) leased the house of Xiao Liu (pseudonym) located in a residential area 1602 in Pudong New Area, Shanghai. The two parties signed a "House Lease Contract" for this purpose, agreeing to pay rent in the form of three deposits and one, with a monthly rent of 85000 yuan and a lease term of one year. After checking in, Xiao Wang goes home to rest every morning after dropping off his child at school. After a period of time, the residents of upstairs 1702 began renovating. 

Although the construction complied with relevant regulations, the daily renovation time overlapped with Xiao Wang's rest time. In early December of the same year, Xiao Wang reported to Xiao Liu about the issue of upstairs decoration noise affecting his rest, and proposed to terminate the lease contract in advance. After learning about the situation, Xiaoliu actively communicated with the property management and upstairs neighbors to minimize the impact of decoration noise. He also expressed that when the lease term expired, he could give Xiaowang a partial rent reduction. However, Xiaowang insisted on terminating the lease early. Xiaoliu returned the remaining rent but refused to refund the deposit. Xiaowang sued Xiaoliu to Pudong Court for this.

Xiao Wang believes that she needs to rest after sending off her child during the day, but the noise generated by the decoration and construction upstairs prevents her from resting normally. Therefore, this house can no longer meet her needs, and the purpose of the lease contract cannot be achieved. Therefore, the landlord has the right to terminate the lease agreement and return the deposit.

Xiaoliu argued that she did not know about the upstairs decoration before Xiaowang provided feedback to her. After learning about the situation, she urged the property manager to visit the upstairs decoration every day to check for any violations and ensure that the decoration complies with relevant regulations. Xiao Wang's early termination of the contract constitutes a breach of contract. He has already refunded the remaining rent and does not need to refund the deposit.

After trial, the Pudong Court believes that according to Article 509 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, both parties to the contract should fully fulfill their obligations, follow the principle of good faith, and fulfill obligations such as notification, assistance, and confidentiality based on the nature, purpose, and transaction habits of the contract.

The housing lease contract between Xiaowang and Xiaoliu represents the true intentions of both parties, and the content does not violate mandatory legal provisions, which is legal and valid. When both parties signed the contract, there was no special agreement on whether the neighboring party's decoration constitutes a termination condition, and the decoration behavior of the upstairs neighbor also complies with the "Shanghai Construction Engineering Civilized Construction Management Regulations" and "Shanghai Social Life Noise Pollution Prevention and Control Measures". Therefore, the neighbor's decoration does not constitute a condition for terminating the contract by agreement or by law. Before terminating the contract, during the negotiation period, Xiaoliu stated that if the contract expires, he can give Xiaowang a certain rent reduction or exemption. However, if Xiaowang insists on terminating the contract in advance, he should bear the liability for breach of contract. The 85000 yuan deposit as a penalty stipulated in the contract cannot be refunded.

Overall, Xiao Wang's lawsuit lacks factual and legal basis, and the court has rejected it.

This article is transferred from the WeChat official account "Shandong Gaofa". Thank you!