Matters such a locks are usually covered in a written lease. If it's not covered or if there is no written lease you probably can. BUT, you must give the landlord a key. The landlord has the right to enter in an emergency and upon reasonable notice to the tenant to inspect the premises.
Keep in mind that landlord / tenant relationships without a written lease are generally governed by state law, so the conclusion may differ from state to state.
When I was a landlord, there was an option to change the keys for a tenant. I had it done at my cost and held a key. Most locksmiths will not change the keys if you do not own the home.
In many commercial leases the tenant is EXPECTED to change the locks and the landlord may not want to even have a key. For example, when renting a self-storage unit, the tenant would typically add his or her own lock to the unit. Upon default or emergency, the landlord would simply break the lock to gain entry, then put on a new lock.
Only if he lawfully evicted you. If the landlord took the tenant to court and obtained a writ of ejectment (or writ of possession), then he must wait the time specified, then have a sheriff deputy or constable conduct the eviction before he can change the locks.
after the tenant has moved, it is recommended. Actually, re-keying.
Yes And No.
The correct term is "subordination". This is an agreement signed by a tenant and landlord of commercial property which is a recognition on the part of the tenant that the lease is subordinate to any mortgage which the landlord has or may in the future place on the property. Lenders sometimes want this so that the tenant recognizes that the lease does not have priority over a mortgage granted by the lender. The non disturbance agreement generally signed by the lender and/or landlord which indicates that so long as the tenant is not in default of the lease, the possession of the tenant will not be "disturbed" or in other words, the tenant will be allowed to remain in the premises even if the landlord should be in default of the mortgage.
No. A lease is a legally binding contract, which obligates both the landlord and tenant to a tenancy for the term of the lease. If you and the landlord both signed a lease, and the landlord refuses to give you occupancy of the property, you need to see a landlord-tenant attorney or tenant's rights group immediately!
It can mean where an estoppel certificate is required of a landlord (they can are also sometimes required of the tenant), where the landlord is required to make certain representations regarding the state of the lease (neither tenant nor landlord are in default), the state of the underlying property (e.g. no encumbrances, or no default on mortgage, or no condemnation proceedings) or other representations at the request of a lender (to the landlord or the tenant) or a buyer of the property.
Yes. The building belongs to the landlord and needs the key in case of an emergency, or if a tenant abandons the property. Also, you should probably check with the landlord prior to changing locks. There might be a clause in the lease stating that only the landlord can change a lock, not the tenant.
Yes, unless the landlord breached the lease in some significant way.
I am presuming we have three components here: a landlord, a tenant, and a subtenant. The landlord in this case is presumably renting to a tenant, while the tenant is presumably renting to a subtenant. I presume that tenant has a lease while the subtenant doesn't. The tenant becomes the landlord for the subtenant. Since there is no lease (in most states subletting does not involve a lease) in this case, the tenant who is the subtenant landlord can evict the subtenant. While the main landlord can evict the tenant -which automatically evicts the subtenant -only the tenant can evict the subtenant. But the main landlord can evict all by evicting the tenant.
Yes he can. A violation of the terms of a lease by a landlord is just as much grounds for termination by the tenant. The landlord can still evict you but less likely will win.
It depends. If the sub-tenant was there by right and the landlord allowed a sub-lease, then that's a situation where nothing has gone wrong. If the landlord is suing, it sounds instead like the tenant did not have the right to sublet and in that case they are responsible to complete the lease and the sub-tenant may not have had the right to be there.
A security deposit is a refundable deposit that a tenant pays to their landlord before they move into a property As long as a tenant abides by the terms of their lease, this deposit should be returned to a tenant when their lease has expired. There are certain situations where a landlord is allowed to keep all or part of a tenant's security deposit.
This should have been disclosed when the landlord performed the background check, before the lease was signed. Well, if the landlord had an application for an apartment to which the tenant denied having been evicted if there were questions that asked such, then the landlord can terminate the lease for the tenant having falsified the information given.
Yes, a landlord in Maryland can sue for future rent if the tenant breaks the lease agreement. However, the landlord has a duty to mitigate damages by making reasonable efforts to find a new tenant. If the landlord finds a new tenant, the tenant who broke the lease agreement will only be responsible for the rent until the new tenant moves in.
Normally the landlord must give at least a 30-day notice before the expiration of the lease that he will not renew it, so the tenant must leave. There is one exception: if the tenant is in violation of the terms of the lease, the landlord may terminate the lease and give such short notice for the tenant to leave.