The circumstances under which a landlord can evict a tenant depend on the specific laws and regulations of the locality, state or province, country where the property is located. This is correct, but it's also a waste of space putting it here; it's of no help at all! By law in my state, a landlord can terminate a month-to-month lease for any reason with 30 days notice. But a landlord can't generally evict before a lease expires without some breach. He can always sue for possession, but he may lose. I'm not an attorney and I'm not giving you legal advice, but merely relaying what I've read, which may not be correct and may not apply to your situations. Talk to your attorney first!
i think so im not sure
The landlord, because he/she owns the property.
Not unless the landlord has followed your state's laws regarding disconnection of utilities for nonpayment. Any landlord who disconnects the tenant's utilities (except temporarily for maintenance purposes) without following these laws will be guilty of constructive eviction. A constructively evicted tenant can sue the landlord for moving expenses and damages.
Yes. Since the tenant affixed the improvement to the property, it becomes a fixture, which belongs to the landlord. An exception to this is if there was an agreement between the landlord and tenant, or if the landlord gives permission for the improvement to be removed. Standard picture hooks, and other like objects, do not constitute fixtures, and may be removed if they belong to the tenant.
If the landlord has such an agreement between a tenant and his subleaser, then the subleaser is no longer a subleasor, and becomes a co-tenant, who would have the same rights as the original tenant. Most landlords don't like subleasers because they are not bound by the same terms as the tenant. By the same token the subleaser is in a bad position because he doesn't have the same rights as a tenant, and can be kicked out at any time.
When a tenant doesn't pay his rent the landlord may begin eviction proceedings in court, which forces the tenant to move.
You can ask for whatever you like.Whether your landlord will agree to give you what you want, or is obligated to do so may be clarified in your lease.(Isn't it really the landlord's condominium?)
The landlord, because he/she owns the property.
Not unless the landlord has followed your state's laws regarding disconnection of utilities for nonpayment. Any landlord who disconnects the tenant's utilities (except temporarily for maintenance purposes) without following these laws will be guilty of constructive eviction. A constructively evicted tenant can sue the landlord for moving expenses and damages.
The possessive forms are landlord's and tenant's; for example:The tenant's apartment is the best one in the landlord's building.
Yes. Since the tenant affixed the improvement to the property, it becomes a fixture, which belongs to the landlord. An exception to this is if there was an agreement between the landlord and tenant, or if the landlord gives permission for the improvement to be removed. Standard picture hooks, and other like objects, do not constitute fixtures, and may be removed if they belong to the tenant.
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.
This is rather touchy, because a landlord cannot be a relative of the tenant except under certain circumstances where the tenant is disabled
James C. Hauser has written: 'Florida residential landlord--tenant manual' -- subject(s): Landlord and tenant 'Texas residential landlord-tenant law' -- subject(s): Landlord and tenant
If the landlord provided a key to the tenant, then the tenant must provide a key to the landlord. In fact, under most state laws the tenant may not change a lock without the landlord's permission and a duplicate key provided to the landlord.
Landlord.
Yes. The tenant should be considered the landlord of the sub-tenant. Therefore, he can evict, just like any landlord.
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.