Immediate eviction orders, acting as a quasi-judicial mechanism to expedite the eviction of leased premises upon contract expiration, have consistently existed in tension between the principles of "expediency of execution" and "due process." Utilizing a descriptive-analytical method and examining judicial precedents alongside relevant regulations—including the Landlord and Tenant Law (1997) and the Housing Market Organization Law (2024)—this research identifies two fundamental gaps in the prevailing legal framework.
The findings reveal a profound procedural conflict rooted in two structural issues. First, the law provides no explicit or effective enforcement mechanism for instances where the issuing authority (the Peace Court) disregards mandatory legal formalities or substantive requirements—such as verifying electronic contract registration or the definitive expiration of the lease term; furthermore, said authority lacks supervisory liability and legal accountability for such violations. Second, prevailing judicial practice, through a narrow interpretation, absolutely denies the availability of appeals or the recognition of these orders as subject to ordinary or extraordinary remedies, thereby obstructing all effective legal recourse for aggrieved tenants.
The study concludes that the continuation of this status quo not only leads to widespread and irreparable infringement of tenant rights but also undermines the credibility of the eviction order institution and challenges the rule of law.