一 审判决 这是一起“解除租赁纠纷”。一九八三年十月,张永祥向法院起诉:“迟宪国租住我一间私房,迟的女儿迟绍桂于一九八○年以照顾其父为名,将户口迁来占房,迟宪国已于一九八一年病故,迟绍桂不是承租人,而且她在单位已分到了住房,故要求收回原租给迟宪国的一间房自住。”迟绍桂称:“张永祥要求收回的这间房子,是我父花东北币二百万元(折合人民币二百元)兑房主穆鸣岐的。当时言明,住房按月交租,腾房吋退还兑金。现张永祥是该房的产权人,那么他应该负责退还兑金再腾房”。 First instance verdict This is a “lifting of lease disputes.” In October 1983, Zhang Yongxiang sued the court: “Later, Xianghuo Guo rented me a private room. Later, her late daughter Shao-chiu-gui relocated his account in the name of taking care of her father in 1980, Chi Hsiang-kuo died in 1981 and Chi Shaogui was not a charterer, and since she has been assigned a home in the unit, she demanded that it be resumed for rent in a room occupied by Chi Hsiang-kuo. ”Chi Shao- “Zhang Yongxiang requested to recover this house, my father spent two million yuan northeast (equivalent to two hundred yuan) against the landlord Mu Ming Qi. At that time stated that the housing pay by month, Teng Fang in return. Now Zhang Yongxiang is the property owner of the room, then he should be responsible for the refund of gold and then Teng room. ”