Because although the epidemic situation is force majeure, it is not a prerequisite for breach of contract. Rent can be reduced or exempted through negotiation to jointly fight the epidemic. But if there is an epidemic, you can break the contract, which is definitely against the contract law. After all, the epidemic is not forever, and we can't throw all the losses to the other side.

Secondly, according to your description, the lessee is not unable to bear it, but just uses the epidemic as an excuse to avoid responsibility. As long as you fix the evidence that the other party rented a house to open a new campus, you can prove that the other party was not unbearable, but deliberately broke the contract.

Finally, I suggest that you negotiate with the lessee carefully, and you can transfer some benefits appropriately according to the epidemic situation. For example, affected by the epidemic, during the period when off-campus institutions stop running schools, the Education Bureau will charge rent by half or waive rent; When the epidemic situation is alleviated and the production and living order is restored, the rent will be recalculated. After all, if the lessee really breaches the contract, even if you win the case, it is difficult to respond profitably. Of course, you can't be completely intimidated by the lessee. If you want to break the contract, it's ruined. The cause of the epidemic cannot be based entirely on force majeure.