Yes, it is illegal for a landlord to not provide a lease to a tenant in most jurisdictions. A lease is a legally binding document that outlines the terms of the rental agreement, and both parties are typically required to have a copy for their records. Failure to provide a lease can lead to legal consequences for the landlord.
Did a court adjudicate the tenant as incompetent? Then, if and when the landlord sues, that would provide the basis for a defense. You can't stop the landlord from trying to recover damages.
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!
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.
In most states, if a lease term is for a fixed amount of time, such as a year, and the tenant breaks lease by moving out early, the landlord can sue for the amount of time it took for the landlord to get a new tenant or for lease to expire, whichever comes first. It is for a month-to-month tenancy, then the landlord has no grounds for suing for future rents.
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.
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.
It is unseemly that a landlord can charge a tenant for other than the items listed in the lease. You can pay them and take your landlord to landlord-tenant court for reimbursement, or you can approach a landlord-tenant advocacy to find the answer that you want.
Yes.