Drunk property

If I could vote, I would definitely vote for 1 building, which is absolutely amazing. ......

It depends on the lease between the sub-tenant and the original owner, whether the sub-tenant has the right to sub-lease, but you said above: "If the original owner does not authorize the second-party lessee to sub-lease, is the sub-lease contract signed by the new third-party lessee and the second-party original lessee valid?" Absolutely invalid.

The third party will not be forced to cancel the contract by the original owner, because this contract was not signed with the original owner at all, and he has no right to cancel the contract.

If a second person without sublease right signs a sublease contract with a third person, the original owner may not recognize the validity of the contract. The third person can only sue the second person and demand compensation from the second person, and it is impossible to have the right to use the property.

The possible consequence is that if Party B does not have the right to sublet, but Party B actually sublets, the original owner can demand to cancel the contract between the original owner and Party B and order the third party to leave, and the third party can only sue Party B and demand compensation from Party B.. The lawsuit is only half-won. Because the third person is also at fault, renting the house without the clear right of subletting the house by the second person proves that the third person is also at fault. If the original owner does anything to the property after canceling the contract with the second party, including tearing down the door and changing the lock, it is normal and legal, and the original owner can make many small moves, such as forcibly detaining the left-over items, which is also called trouble.

The court is a person who clearly supports the right to use property.