The owner privately modified the entrance door to move 60 centimeters outward.

Original title: The owner privately modified the entrance door to move 60 centimeters outward (topic)

Changsha Tianxin Court ruled to eliminate the obstruction and restore it to its original condition (subtitle)

Wen Li, reporter of Rule of Law Daily Juan Correspondent Xu Yaling

When renovating a house, can I change the outdoor door opening designed by the developer into an internal door opening without authorization?

The People\’s Court of Tianxin District, Changsha City, Hunan Province recently reported a case: the defendant changed his entrance door from outside to inside, and moved it 60 centimeters outward, encroaching on the shared space with his neighbor. The court ruled The defendant was reinstated within 30 days.

Wang is the owner of Room 903, Building A, in a community in Changsha. In 2016, Room 904 next door to Wang \”changed to a new owner\”, but the new neighbor did not bring Wang a good mood.

It turns out that Room 903 and Room 904 share a corridor. The entrance doors of the two rooms open vertically, and the two entrance doors are more than 90 centimeters apart. When renovating the house, the new owner of Room 904, Mr. Li, changed his entrance door from outside to inside, and moved it outward by about 60 centimeters, thereby converting about 0.6 square meters of public area outside his door into the indoor area of ​​his house, resulting in two The entrance doors to the home were only more than 20 centimeters apart, and Wang obviously felt inconvenience when entering and closing the door.

After several attempts to communicate with Li to no avail, Wang and Li took him to court.

After trial, the Tianxin District Court held that according to the design drawings of the house, there was a wall 90 centimeters apart between Room 903 owned by the plaintiff and Room 904 owned by the defendant, which the defendant entered when renovating the house. The door of the house moved outward by about 60 centimeters. The entrance corridor is a shared part and the owner has no right to occupy it without authorization. The defendant\’s behavior violated the plaintiff\’s legitimate rights and interests. According to the law, the infringement should be stopped and the obstruction eliminated.

Based on this, the Tianxin District Court made a first-instance judgment: the defendant shall cease infringement, eliminate obstruction, and restore the shared corridor between Room 903 and Room 904 to its original state (according to the house design) within 30 days from the date of entry into force of this judgment. drawings).

After the first-instance verdict, the defendant was dissatisfied and appealed to the Changsha Intermediate People\’s Court, and the second-instance court upheld the original verdict.

Cao Shuwei, the judge presiding over the case, reminded that according to the provisions of the Civil Code, neighboring rights holders of real estate should correctly handle neighboring relationships in accordance with the principles of conducive to production, convenient life, solidarity and mutual assistance, and fairness and reasonableness. When dealing with neighborly relations, people should be friendly to their neighbors and should not benefit themselves at the expense of others. The act of blocking the passage as one\’s own will have an adverse impact on the lives and travel of neighboring residents and infringe on the rights of other co-owners.

Source: Rule of Law Daily