Jia had a house that needed to be rented out, so he approached a certain intermediary company and issued a "House Entrustment Letter" to him. After that, both parties signed a "House Rental Entrustment Contract". The contract stipulates that Jia fully entrusts the intermediary company to exclusively act as the agent for the rental of the house, and the intermediary company pays him a monthly rent of 1800 yuan, which is paid quarterly. Subsequently, the intermediary company signed a "House Lease Contract" with Ms. Sun, agreeing to lease Jia's house to Ms. Sun for one year with a deposit of 1800 yuan and a rent of 1100 yuan per month. Ms. Sun paid a total of 15000 yuan in rent and deposit before moving in. However, the intermediary company did not pay the rent to Jia as agreed and was unable to contact him. Jia found the tenant Ms. Sun to negotiate the leasing matter but failed, so he took away the water and electricity card of the house. Ms. Sun was forced to move out of the house involved in the case. Subsequently, Ms. Sun filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Huaiyin District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, demanding that the intermediary company and Mr. Jia refund a total of 15000 yuan in rent and deposit, and demand the termination of the "House Lease Contract" signed with the intermediary company. The court believes that Jia and the intermediary company signed a "House Rental Entrustment Contract", while the intermediary company and Ms. Sun signed a "House Rental Contract". The nature of the two contracts is different. From the content of the "House Rental Entrustment Contract" signed between the intermediary company and Jia, it can be seen that the intermediary company, as the trustee, must pay rent to Jia as the principal. It can be seen that the purpose of the intermediary company's contract is to obtain the right to use and benefit from the property involved by paying rent, which is different from the purpose of the trustee obtaining remuneration in a paid entrustment contract. The contractual relationship between Jia and the intermediary company is called a commission contract, but in fact, it is a housing lease contract. The House Lease Contract signed between Ms. Sun and the intermediary company is a true expression of the intentions of both parties and does not violate mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations. It should be legal and valid, and both parties should exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations in accordance with the contract. As the lessee of the property involved in the case, the intermediary company signed a sublease contract with Ms. Sun. Ms. Sun is a sub lessee, and the intermediary company is the counterparty to this contract. Therefore, the lease contract between Ms. Sun and the intermediary company does not bind Mr. Jia, and Mr. Jia does not assume any responsibility for return. As the lessee, the intermediary company should ensure the normal use of the property by the sub lessee Ms. Sun during the lease term. Due to the intermediary company's failure to pay the rent to the lessor Jia as agreed, and the loss of contact after collecting the rent and deposit of the property in question, Ms. Sun was unable to continue using the property in question and was forced to move out. The intermediary company should return the rent and deposit that Ms. Sun had already paid. Ms. Sun's purpose of renting the house cannot be achieved, and she is also unable to notify the intermediary company to terminate the contract. Therefore, when Ms. Sun moves out and delivers the involved house to Mr. Jia, it should be considered that her lease relationship with the intermediary company has been terminated. In the end, the Huaiyin Court ruled in accordance with the law that the "House Lease Contract" signed between Ms. Sun and the intermediary company was terminated, and the intermediary company refunded a total of 15000 yuan in rent and deposit. Ms. Sun's request for Jia to bear joint responsibility for the refund of rent and deposit was not supported by the court. Tenants of subletting houses should first clarify the defaulting party in order to protect their rights