Property rights are higher than "overall beauty", and owners are not allowed to lose balcony property rights.

"I want to install a closed balcony, but what if the property doesn't agree?" Open the network forums of many communities in Nanjing, and such doubts are widespread. Due to the different views brought by the installation of closed balconies, there are many contradictions between the owners and the property, and even bloody conflicts have occurred in some communities in Nanjing. However, in the dispute of installing a closed balcony in Nantong, Jiangsu, the defendant owner won the final victory. This case, regarded as a classic by Jiangsu High Court, shows that the property right is higher than the so-called "overall beauty of the community" and the owner has the right to install a closed balcony.

Controversy about closing balconies exists in many communities.

[Case] Closing the balcony triggered a lawsuit.

Ms. Zhu is an ordinary owner of Tianan Garden (see photo) in Nantong. Before moving in, she didn't want to install a closed balcony. "The eaves are too narrow, and there is water on the balcony when it rains. In addition, my home is close to the road, which is noisy and dusty, which has a great impact on my quality of life. " Ms. Zhu said that for the sake of beauty, she specially installed a frameless balcony.

However, even if it is a frameless balcony, the contradiction between her and the property is irreconcilable. The property took out the Tianan Garden Property Management Convention and Supplementary Agreement signed by Ms. Zhu when she received the key. Article 6 of the supplementary agreement clearly stipulates: "The balcony shall not be closed and the facade shall not be changed." Moreover, the purchase contract signed by Ms. Zhu and the developer also reads: "The balcony shall not be closed without authorization."

Ms. Zhu admitted to signing the contract, but she couldn't figure it out: "I bought the house and installed it on my balcony." Why not? "

"As the owner, you have the right to control the balcony, but it doesn't mean you have the right to use it at will. The balcony is not closed from design to delivery, which conforms to the national norms and the functions of the balcony and can meet the needs of the owners. " The property owner explained, "The main function of the balcony is to provide drying and so on. You require the balcony to have the functions of' safety, dust prevention and noise prevention', which is an expansion of the right to use the balcony. "

In the view of the property, the contract is in black and white, and Ms. Zhu's autograph is nothing to say. Because Ms. Zhu refused to remove the balcony, the property took her to court on the grounds of breach of contract, demanding that the balcony be restored to its original state and confirming the legality and validity of the supplementary agreement.

Interest game allows owners to install closed balconies.

After two trials, the court ruled that the property lost the case. On the three main points of the judgment, the court told the truth very thoroughly.

in the first place

Standard clauses cannot restrict "real right"

Ms. Zhu is the owner of this house. As a specific part attached to the main body of the house, the balcony is independent in structure and use, and should be recognized as an exclusive part of the house, and Ms. Zhu enjoys exclusive ownership. The supplementary agreement prohibits the balcony from being closed by the format clause, which excludes the other party's main rights. According to the contract law, it should be invalid. Closing the balcony is an act within the scope of the owner's exercise of "real right", but the property management company excludes the owner's higher "real right" and lower property management right without consultation, which leads to the imbalance of rights and obligations between the two parties.

Second point

Closing the balcony did not harm the interests of others.

Ms. Zhu closed the balcony, which is in line with the legitimate requirements of exercising "property rights". She closed the balcony for the needs of living safety, dust prevention and noise prevention. The adopted method takes into account the overall beauty of the residential environment and does not harm the legitimate rights and interests of other owners in the residential area. Its purpose, method and result are legitimate and do not belong to the behavior prohibited by laws and regulations.

the third point

Property right is higher than "overall beauty"

Owners' housing interests based on "property rights" should be given priority protection. Protecting the external beauty and overall style of buildings and communities is also a legitimate interest in jurisprudence and in the usual sense, and should be maintained. This has a conflict of interest with closing the balcony. However, under the balance of interests, the residential interests enjoyed by owners because of "property rights" are higher and more important than the superficial interests such as the overall beauty of buildings and communities, and should be given priority protection.

[Court] The property lost the case at three o'clock.

The senior judge of the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province believes that the trend of diversification of social interest subjects is becoming more and more obvious, and the conflict of rights of social subjects is becoming more and more serious. When making a judgment, the judge must consider the possible impact of the trial result on the protection of rights and social effects. This case is a game of interests of both parties, communities and society.

Ms. Zhu closed the balcony, which inevitably changed the appearance of part of the facade of the house and had a certain impact on the overall harmony between the building and the community. However, if the property company restricts her from closing the balcony without legal basis, it will violate her legal rights, and there is obviously a conflict of interest between the two.

Housing is the most basic means of subsistence to meet the needs of human survival, and it is also the enjoyment material to meet the requirements of human life quality. Therefore, the residential interests derived from this, including the right to protect the house from infringement, rational use and renovation to provide quality of life, should be protected, which has become a social consciousness.

However, how to protect the overall beauty of buildings and communities is not clearly stipulated by law. It is generally believed that only under certain circumstances, such as in scenic spots and urban main roads, can it override the will of the owners. Therefore, as far as this case is concerned, according to the principle of "the lesser of the two evils and the heavier of the two benefits", the residential interests enjoyed by the owners based on property rights are higher than and heavier than the superficial interests such as buildings and the overall beauty of the community, and should be given priority protection.