In recent years, specialty shops represented by the appearance of shipping containers have been built in major city squares and commercial streets, playing a positive role in efficient land use and stimulating consumption. However, during the operation process, container-type shops often do not have the properties of houses in the general sense. When disputes arise, one party will often argue that the lease contract is invalid on the grounds that the containers are not properties of shops. Recently, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment on a dispute over a container shop leasing contract.

Rent a container to sell snacks and take the dispute to court
On December 2, 2021, Wu rented a container shop from a business company to sell fried skewers snacks. The two parties signed a "Shop Lease Contract" and agreed that the monthly rent would be 15,000 yuan, which would be paid every three months. The contract also stipulates that Wu will pay three months' rent to the business company as liquidated damages when signing the contract; the shopping mall supporting facilities fee paid by Wu to the business company on the day of signing the contract will not be refunded; if Wu continues to default on the rent for more than Within 7 working days, the business company has the right to cut off power and close the store, terminate the contract, deduct liquidated damages, etc.
After the contract was signed, Wu paid the business company a deposit of 45,000 yuan, a supporting facility fee of 30,000 yuan, and paid the rent until June 12, 2022. In addition, Wu also paid 12,000 yuan for garbage removal fees from December 2, 2021 to December 1, 2022.
However, during the performance of the contract, the two parties had disputes over various fees payment, electricity bill payment and other issues. On June 13, 2022, the business company cut off the power to the container shop rented by Wu, causing Wu to be unable to operate and causing some material losses.
On June 19 of the same year, Wu returned the disputed shop to the commercial company and filed a lawsuit with the court, requiring the commercial company to return part of the rent, deposit, shopping mall supporting facilities fees and other fees he paid.
First instance: The shop lease contract is invalid
The court of first instance held that the shop in question was transformed from a container and had the properties of a house in the general sense. However, the business company did not provide administrative approval procedures such as property ownership certificates and corresponding construction plans, so the "Shop Lease Contract" should be invalid.
Based on the facts ascertained, the court of first instance determined that Wu had returned the disputed shop to the business company on June 19, 2022, so the corresponding house occupation fee should not be calculated in the future. After the contract is invalidated, the deposit paid by Wu shall be returned by the business company. Considering the degree of fault of the parties and other factors, and based on the principles of good faith, fairness and reasonableness, it was determined as appropriate that the business company would refund Wu's rent of 10,000 yuan, supporting facilities fee of 20,000 yuan, garbage disposal fee of 7,500 yuan, and compensate Wu for material losses of 800 yuan. Regarding the issue of Wu's arrears in electricity bills, the court determined that Wu would bear 800 yuan at its discretion.
After the first-instance judgment, the business company was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate Court.
Second instance: The contract should not be deemed invalid on the grounds that it is not a house.
The Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court held after trial that a house is a long-term, fixed building built on a certain land according to planning, and has the characteristics of being immovable. The shop in dispute was converted from a shipping container and was essentially a temporary, movable stall, not a house in the ordinary sense. The business company opened a market in the square of the shopping mall involved, using container-shaped temporary business premises as a temporary business premises. It has obtained permission from the relevant government departments. Therefore, the "Shop Lease Contract" involved in the case should be deemed to be the true expression of both parties and does not violate the law. , Mandatory provisions of laws and regulations shall be valid and both parties shall abide by them.
In summary, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court determined that the "Shop Lease Contract" is valid in the second instance and confirmed that the "Shop Lease Contract" will be terminated on June 20, 2022. The court of first instance upheld the fact that the handling of rent, supporting facilities fees, garbage disposal fees, electricity fees and other expenses was not inappropriate.
Judge’s Interpretation: The lease contract for the mobile stall is also valid
Commercial stalls and booths such as containers, dining carts, and trolleys are common commercial forms in urban shopping malls, cultural and entertainment centers and other outdoor areas. They not only meet the diverse needs of consumers, but also stimulate individual economic development and encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. However, from a legal perspective, how should the validity of the lease contract signed by the parties for container shops (stalls, booths, etc.) be defined? Whether it can be equated to a house and the relevant laws and regulations on house lease contracts are applicable, is how to deal with such related disputes. Legal issues that must be resolved.
Since houses in the traditional sense are long-term and immovable, container-type shops (stalls, booths, etc.) are essentially temporary and movable stalls, not houses in the general sense. Compared with house construction, container shops do not have the realistic material basis to produce and issue property rights certificates, construction planning permits, etc. Objectively, it is also impossible to apply for property rights certificates. Therefore, container shops cannot be recognized as houses, and further lack of property rights certificates or The house leasing contract was deemed invalid due to the construction approval procedures. Moreover, the container shop in this case has obtained a temporary operating license from the relevant government functional departments. Therefore, the "Shop Lease Contract" involved in the case should be deemed to be the true expression of intention of both parties and does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, so it must be legal and valid.