【摘要】：上海市的朝旭公司承租濱河公司所有的房屋，在征得濱河公司同意后將房屋轉(zhuǎn)租給藺州公司。因藺州公司沒有向朝旭公司支付房屋租金，朝旭公司遂將藺州公司訴至法院，藺州公司辯稱租賃合同沒有登記備案，合同無效。本案的爭議焦點(diǎn)是房屋租賃合同未經(jīng)房地產(chǎn)管理部門的登記備案是否有效。本案經(jīng)過兩審，法院都認(rèn)定原、被告之間簽訂的房屋租賃合同合法有效，支持了原告的訴訟請求。 與本案有關(guān)的理論問題有：一、房屋租賃權(quán)的性質(zhì)。關(guān)于房屋租賃權(quán)的性質(zhì)，，理論界有債權(quán)說、物權(quán)說和債權(quán)物權(quán)化學(xué)說。債權(quán)說的理由是租賃權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)是租賃合同；法律對租賃關(guān)系的規(guī)制置于《合同法》且《物權(quán)法》沒有規(guī)定房屋租賃權(quán)為物權(quán)。物權(quán)說認(rèn)為租賃權(quán)為用益物權(quán)，理由是房屋租賃權(quán)人對租賃房屋有直接支配性而無需出租人介入；符合物權(quán)法“一物一權(quán)”原則；“買賣不破租賃”，租賃權(quán)具有對抗效力；租賃權(quán)人享有占有保護(hù)請求權(quán)。債權(quán)物權(quán)化學(xué)說認(rèn)為，房屋租賃權(quán)在本質(zhì)上為債權(quán)，只是國家法律政策基于承租人對租賃房屋享有占有、使用和收益的權(quán)利，給予弱勢的承租人以傾斜性保護(hù)，賦予其在一定條件下可對抗第三人。筆者贊同債權(quán)物權(quán)化學(xué)說。二、房屋租賃登記備案的立法目的轉(zhuǎn)變和完善。我國實(shí)行房屋租賃合同登記備案的起初目的是行政審批和行政征收，而后有所轉(zhuǎn)變，但其也具有公示公信的功能�！渡唐贩孔赓U辦法》對房屋租賃登記規(guī)定的還不夠完善。筆者認(rèn)為，應(yīng)將房屋租賃登記備案納入不動產(chǎn)登記部門統(tǒng)一登記。三、有學(xué)者認(rèn)為，房屋租賃合同的登記備案與合同的效力無關(guān)。事實(shí)上，經(jīng)登記備案的房屋租賃合同才應(yīng)具有對抗效力。這既符合公平正義原則，也更有社會效果。 本案的一審和二審法院的判決都存在有一些問題。一審法院的判決書的判決理由不夠充分，沒有引用最高人民法院《合同法解釋（一）》，判決合同解除的理由錯誤，沒有適用約定解除而直接適用協(xié)議解除；二審法院依據(jù)地方法規(guī)認(rèn)為合同的登記備案具有對抗效力，這與《物權(quán)法》和《合同法》的規(guī)定相抵觸。從法律解釋、適用的思路分析，筆者認(rèn)為可以直接引用最高人民法院《合同法解釋（一）》的規(guī)定，合同的有效與否應(yīng)該以法律、行政法規(guī)為依據(jù)，從而認(rèn)定合同合法有效。透過最高院的司法解釋與部門規(guī)章沖突的現(xiàn)象，指出法律需要對利益沖突進(jìn)行取舍和平衡。
[Abstract]:Zhaoxu Company in Shanghai rents all the houses owned by Binhe Company and sublets them to Linzhou Company with the consent of Binhe Company. Because Rushou did not pay Zhaoxu the rent of the house, Chaoxu sued Linzhou in court, arguing that the lease contract was not registered and the contract was null and void. The dispute focuses on the validity of the housing lease contract without registration by the real estate management department. After both trials, the court found that the house lease contract signed between the defendants was legal and valid, supporting the plaintiff's claim. The theoretical issues related to this case are as follows: first, the nature of the right to rent houses. As to the nature of house lease right, there are claims theory, real right theory and real right chemistry theory. The reason of the claim is that the lease right is based on the lease contract, and the regulation of the lease relationship is placed in the contract law and the property law does not stipulate that the right to rent the house is the real right. The theory of real right thinks that the lease right is usufruct right, the reason is that the owner of the lease right has direct control over the leased house without the lessor's intervention; it conforms to the principle of "one thing one right" in the property Law; "buying and selling the lease does not break the lease", and the lease right has the antagonistic effect; The leaseholder shall have the right to claim possession and protection. According to the chemical theory of real right of creditor's rights, the right to rent a house is essentially a creditor's right, only based on the right of the lessee to possess, use and benefit from the leased house, and to give the weak lessee an oblique protection. Give them under certain conditions can be against the third person. The author agrees with the theory of real-right chemistry of creditor's rights. Second, the legislative purpose of housing lease registration and filing is changed and improved. The purpose of the registration and filing of the housing lease contract in our country was administrative examination and approval and administrative collection, but it also had the function of publicizing public trust. The author believes that the housing lease registration record should be incorporated into the real estate registration department unified registration. Third, some scholars believe that the registration of housing rental contracts and the effectiveness of the contract. In fact, the registration of the housing lease contract should have countervailing effect. This not only accords with the principle of fairness and justice, but also has more social effect. There are some problems in the judgment of the court of first and second instance in this case. The judgment of the court of first instance is not sufficient, not citing the Supreme people's Court < interpretation of contract Law (1) >, the reason for the termination of the judgment contract is wrong, there is no applicable agreement to terminate and the agreement is directly applicable. According to the local laws and regulations, the court of second instance considers that the registration and filing of contracts has antagonistic effect, which is in conflict with the provisions of Real right Law and contract Law. Based on the analysis of the legal interpretation and the applicable thinking, the author thinks that the provisions of the Supreme people's Court's interpretation of contract Law (1) can be directly quoted, and the validity of the contract should be based on the laws and administrative regulations, so as to determine the validity of the contract. Through the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court and the conflict of departmental regulations, it is pointed out that the law needs to choose and balance conflicts of interest.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D922.181;D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 黃建文,鄒沛;論《房屋租賃證》的法律效力[J];常州工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年05期

2 羅秀蘭;;房屋租賃權(quán)的法律性質(zhì)探析[J];湖北社會科學(xué);2006年06期

3 祝建軍;;房屋租賃權(quán)物權(quán)化研究 以不動產(chǎn)公示公信原則引入的必要性為視角[J];法律適用;2006年Z1期

4 曾蕾;;論我國房屋租賃權(quán)的性質(zhì)[J];法制與社會;2008年36期

5 高麗珂;;論不動產(chǎn)租賃權(quán)的物權(quán)性質(zhì)[J];法制與社會;2009年10期

6 袁黎黎;;不動產(chǎn)房屋租賃權(quán)性質(zhì)的歸宿[J];法制與社會;2011年11期

7 宋剛;論我國用益物權(quán)的重構(gòu)——以租賃權(quán)性質(zhì)展開[J];河南社會科學(xué);2005年03期

8 李朝暉;;論房屋租賃合同登記備案制度的立法價(jià)值目標(biāo)[J];廣西社會科學(xué);2008年02期

9 黃周炳;;我國租賃權(quán)物權(quán)化及其公示模式選擇[J];江西社會科學(xué);2009年08期

10 金可可;債權(quán)物權(quán)區(qū)分說的構(gòu)成要素[J];法學(xué)研究;2005年01期

本文編號：2256278