A property purchased for 5 million yuan in 2015 has become a long-term burden for Ms. Gao of Guiyang. The two shops she owns at the Datang·Dongyuan Fortune Plaza in Guanshanhu District have been plagued by persistent smoke backflow from flues, noise pollution, and an inability to lease, leaving the assets vacant for years.

Ms. Gao stated that she and her husband bought the two shops in 2015, lured by the district's commercial potential, and officially took possession from the developer in 2017. Initially, the shops were leased to a supermarket and a restaurant. After both tenants vacated, the former restaurant operator relocated next door but continued using the smoke exhaust pipes installed within Ms. Gao's property, igniting the conflict. Ms. Gao noted that her husband handled the property handover and overlooked the large commercial flue system embedded in the shop, planting the seeds for future disputes.

The combination of pungent cooking fumes and noise rendered the shops unrentable, leading to three consecutive years of vacancy. Ms. Gao repeatedly contacted both the developer and the property management company to verify the flue's ownership and resolve the backflow issue, but received no substantive solution. When she unilaterally dismantled the flue inside her shop, the property management intervened forcefully, claiming the flue was a "public facility" and proceeded with on-site construction. This action damaged the pipework, exacerbating the smoke leakage. The conflict escalated, with Ms. Gao involving the police and relevant authorities, but no satisfactory resolution was reached.

For years, Ms. Gao has argued with the developer and property management over the flue's ownership, with neither party providing a clear justification. To clarify liability, she demands that the property management and developer produce official engineering completion drawings bearing a corporate seal. A reporter accompanied Ms. Gao to the property management office.

Property Management Head Zhang Sai: Ms. Gao believes the flue is exclusively hers as an owner. Our view is that it is a public passage. We think if this flue remains blocked, and we cannot take emergency precautions, the impact on our other tenants would be greater. Based on Article 12 of the property management regulations, we entered the property under emergency conditions.

Ms. Gao: You can just draw any design drawing. We all work in engineering; we know how this works, right?

Property Management Head Zhang Sai: It definitely isn't just drawn casually. That's not how we operate.

Ms. Gao: Moreover, for three years, Mr. Zhang, I've been asking for these drawings. Is it really that difficult?

Property Management Head Zhang Sai: The company is indeed searching internally for them now.

Ms. Gao: What is going on with you people? And breaking the lock to enter my property—what kind of behavior is that? Is this gangsterism? I've been trying to communicate. Are you trying to destroy me? I have millions of yuan in assets here, and now a smoke pipe is running through my home. I ask you, Mr. Zhang, would you accept this?

The core dispute centers on the flue's classification. The property management insists it is a public facility but cannot provide the certified completion drawings to prove it. Zhang Sai explained that he joined the company in 2020 and the developer did not transfer the historical project documents to the property management. A search of the company's archives found no relevant records. He stated that if the flue does affect Ms. Gao's ability to lease the shop, the property management is willing to cooperate on remedial actions.

The reporter then contacted the Guanshanhu District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau, where staff stated that the project's overall acceptance was handled by the Guiyang Municipal Bureau, and the district office holds no archived records. The bureau contacted the developer, demanding they retrieve the stored drawings for verification. The property management head agreed to work with the developer to find the official drawings and report back to Ms. Gao promptly. Ms. Gao indicated she would wait for the results before discussing next steps. The following day, the property management reported that they still could not locate the relevant completion drawings, a finding Ms. Gao found incomprehensible.

Accompanied by the reporter, Ms. Gao visited the Guiyang Municipal Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau. The bureau again ordered the developer to produce the original drawings within a deadline, stating that once the drawings are verified, the ownership of the flue and the responsibilities of all parties can be clearly defined.

To clarify the legal boundaries, the reporter consulted lawyer Shen Qiqi from Guizhou Yunchu Law Firm.

Lawyer Shen Qiqi from Guizhou Yunchu Law Firm: First, Ms. Gao has acquired ownership of the shop through purchase. If the flue is located within the exclusive part of the property, she has the exclusive right to possess, use, and dispose of it and its internal facilities. If it is confirmed that the flue hinders the normal use of her shop, and its removal does not affect the normal operations of neighboring tenants, Ms. Gao has the right to take measures to remove the obstruction, such as sealing or dismantling it—but she must preserve evidence and avoid extreme actions. However, this right has boundaries. If sealing or dismantling the flue prevents adjacent restaurant tenants from exhausting smoke and affects their legal business operations, then Ms. Gao's actions could constitute a nuisance to neighbors, and she would not have the right to unilaterally decide on the removal.

The lawyer also pointed out legal flaws in the property management's actions.

Lawyer Shen Qiqi from Guizhou Yunchu Law Firm: Without reaching an agreement with Ms. Gao or obtaining her explicit consent, the property management and developer should not have taken drastic measures such as breaking or changing locks to restrict the owner's access to her own shop. Such actions hinder the owner's normal use and ability to lease the property. If this causes vacancy losses, the property management and developer may face corresponding liability for damages. The most critical evidence lies in the drawings. As the party responsible for delivery and construction, if the developer cannot provide completion drawings or construction drawings to prove the timeline of the flue's installation and its public nature, it should bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence. The flue cannot be deemed public based solely on subjective assumptions or coercive actions. If the developer holds the drawings but refuses to provide them and forcibly locks the shop to conduct construction, it may be infringing on Ms. Gao's ownership rights.

A single set of drawings has become the key to unlocking this commercial dispute. It tests not only a company's document management but also its sense of responsibility when confronting legacy issues. Meanwhile, Ms. Gao's prolonged ordeal with smoke nuisance and asset depreciation is urgent. We hope relevant authorities will proactively step in, expedite the verification of the drawings, promptly resolve this livelihood issue, and set a standard for market order.