The following is a translation of the full Chinese judgment, recent-delivered by the Supreme Court at Nanking, in the ease of the Dah Lung Real' Estate Company -v-Lau Dah Vong, et al, setting aside the judgment' of the Appellate Division of the Second Branch' of the High Court for Kiangsu, wit remitting the erse to court for restrial on certain important points. The judgment appealed against upheld the intention of the tenants.
In this case, the appellants being dissatisfied with the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court of the Shanghai Provisional Court, fon March 17, 1980, sitting Court First Appeal, has appealed to this Court, and this Court adjudicates as follows:—
That part of the original judgment which dismisses the appel-Tant's suit against: the respondents {in the Court of First Instance with costs, shall be set aside, the case fo be remanded to the Second Branch of the Kiangsu High Court for retrial, According to part. 1 of Art, $12 of the Revised Code of Civil Procedure, after the legal effects of Pendeney of an action come into no transfer of the subject ect existing action. plaintiff? or m defendant in a suit does not lose his qualification of being a party to the litigation just Decause of the transfer of the sub-
Ject matter in dispute. In view of the above, it ix clear that the apits can continue the present regardless of any sale of the property in dispute, The plea: of the respondents that inasmuch as the appellants have no interest in the property, and cannot continue the action is therefore incorrect, Furthermore, according to paragraph 2 of Art. 2 of the same Code, where the dispute is between land= Jard and the tenant over the question of removal, and there is no dispute over the contract of lease, then jurisdiction shall lie in the local court. If there is any dispute on the lease (contract), then it is a suit on the merits of the jon of the In the present case, since the dispute of the two parties is to decide whether or not the tenancy should be dissolved; it, naturally, does not come within the scope of Art. 2 of the above said Code. The respondents' contention that the case should be dealt with by the Toco court, and cannot be appealed to this Court is, therefore, also misconception of the law.
In the case at bar, the appellants desired to claim possession of the houses let to the respondents, and to lease the same to the Great China Company, who would rebuild the premises, and early, on their own business therein. The respond ents were unwilling to vaante the premises they occupied and: so this action was instituted, Upon referring to the Court's files, we find that the respondents, at the time of renting the houses, did not sign a written contract (lease), nor was any period of the tenancy fixed. This fact has boon legally established in the Lower Court, The question, then, is when ther this kind of tenancy can be dissolved at any time by the appellants. According to Art, 18 of the Law governing the Enforcement of the "obligations" section in the Code, and according to. par. 2 of Art. 450 of the same Section of the Civil Code, the question hinges upon the fact as to whether there is any local custom advant= tageous to the tenants, The respondents deny the right of the appellants to cancel the tenancy, and. contend that according to the custom. prevalent Shanghai, except when the landlord desires to regain possession of the house for his own use, or where the rental has been in arrears for.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.