Wu rented a container to operate an Internet celebrity stall. However, during the performance of the contract, disputes arose over various cost issues and eventually went to court. Recently, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court concluded a case involving a dispute over a container shop lease contract. After the trial, the court held that the container shop in this case had obtained a temporary operating license from the relevant government functional departments, and the contract should be valid. The court of first instance held that the rent was , supporting facilities fees, garbage disposal fees, electricity bills and other fees are not improperly handled and shall be maintained.

Differences in payment after renting a container
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 a deposit 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 rent for more than 7 On working days, the business company has the right to cut off the power and close the store, terminate the contract, deduct the deposit, 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.
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. The court determined at its discretion that the business company should 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 verdict, the business company was dissatisfied and appealed to the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate Court.
Second instance: the contract should not be deemed invalid
After trial, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court held that the business company opened a market in the square of the shopping mall involved in the case, using a container-shaped temporary business premises, and had obtained permission from the relevant government departments. Therefore, the "Shop Lease Contract" involved in the case should be deemed to be between the two parties. It is a true representation and does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, so it should be valid and both parties should abide by it.
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 Tips]
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.