上海市长宁区人民法院近日审理了一起房屋租赁合同纠纷案。房东刘女士与承租人张先生因18年长期租赁房屋的返还状态发生纠纷 [1]。张先生租赁房屋自2006年6月至2024年7月，收房时房屋被改造成四室、墙面改色、多处出现霉变和破损 [1]。刘女士要求恢复原状并提出赔偿诉求，包括修复费14万余元、空置损失10万余元及逾期付租违约金5000元 [1]。
法院经审理认定，张先生未能提供有效证据证明房屋改造获得许可，应当承担修复责任；但将多处损害认定为自然损耗，不纳入赔偿范围 [1]。根据《民法典》第七百三十三条，租赁期限届满，承租人应当返还租赁物，符合按照约定或根据租赁物性质使用后的状态 [1]。法院最终判令张先生支付修复费与空置损失共6万余元，刘女士返还保证金6600元（其中5000元用于折抵违约金）[1]。
法官提醒租赁双方，签订合同时应明确约定房屋返还状态，对"原状"留存好证据，若涉及改造应书面协商一致 [1]。这有助于在纠纷发生时厘清自然损耗与人为损坏的责任边界，保护双方合法权益。
A Shanghai court has ruled on an 18-year rental dispute, distinguishing between normal deterioration and tenant-caused damage while establishing clearer standards for property restoration obligations. [1]
Landlord Liu and tenant Zhang engaged in a legal dispute over the condition of the returned property after their rental agreement, which ran from June 2006 to July 2024, concluded. [1] Upon recovering the premises, Liu discovered structural alterations converting the unit to a four-bedroom layout, repainting of walls, and multiple instances of mold and damage throughout the property. [1] Liu demanded restoration to original condition and sought compensation totaling approximately 240,000 yuan, comprising 140,000 yuan in repair costs, 100,000 yuan for vacancy losses, and 5,000 yuan in late payment penalties. [1]
The Changning District People's Court of Shanghai determined that Zhang's renovations lacked documented authorization and therefore required him to bear repair responsibility. [1] However, the court classified numerous damage instances as natural wear and tear rather than tenant negligence. [1] The final judgment ordered Zhang to pay approximately 60,000 yuan combined for repairs and vacancy losses, while Liu was required to return 6,600 yuan of the original 11,600 yuan security deposit, with 5,000 yuan applied toward the penalty. [1] The decision was rendered in November 2025. [1]
The court emphasized that tenants must return rental property in condition consistent with its normal use according to contract terms or the property's nature, as stipulated in the Civil Code. [1] The judge advised landlords and tenants to specify expected return conditions explicitly in rental agreements, preserve evidence of the property's original state, and document any structural modifications through written mutual consent. [1]