When one doesn't have a choice, they can live virtually anywhere. Should such a tenant find a better house nearby, thing is, they'll move out as soon as they can. I've come to realize though that many landlords don't like it when their tenants move out. From the the moment the tenant moves out he becomes an enemy? Supposing the tenant for some reason desires to return, would this landlord suddenly stop hating that person? Just out of curiosity, do any of you landlords get ill-disposed towards tenants who are leaving even if they've done nothing to antagonize you?
Hmm, that's never something I experienced before. I think if you're a good tenant, the owner would LOVE to have you back.
That is a strange issue because most landlords should realize that the tenant is eventually going to move on. Lease agreements are only binding during the time of the lease and there is a 50 percent chance the tenant is going to make the choice to stay for another lease period, especially if the landlord is going to increase the rent. If you are a good tenant, then your landlord should love you and would be happy for you to return eventually.
When a tenant decides to vacate the premises because they found a home in the area that fits them a bit better I know that they tend to think of the landlord as the mortal enemy because they want to break the lease when they feel as though they want to. And my personal opinion is if it in it has decided to change their mind at the last minute there should be proper notification to the landlord and a specific amount set a break the lease. Why should the landlord suffer because the tenant changed their mind?
I beg to differ in that, if the last three tenants were to show up and ask me to free up the house for them to enter...a very big NO would resound up to the heavens, they caused me nothing but pain and heartache!...but if one wanted to move, that's fine, you get to up/raise the rent once more for the new tenant coming in
So wait, if i'm understanding you correctly... once the lease is in place, if either party revokes it before time, either party will have to part with a certain amount of money?...or in the long run, it'll be a court case?...kindly help me understand further.
I think the relationship between a tenant and landlord depends on what sort of rental agreement is in place between them. If the tenant just gets up and doesn't replace the room, then of course the landlord is going to be really mad. But ultimately, the landlord wants the rent to be paid. If a tenant moves out and that room is replaced, most landlords aren't going to care if they get the new tenant on the rental agreement and gets the rent payment.
What I meant by the statement was simply if there are tenents when your purchasing a property you have to discuss with the landowner to determine if it is within that contract if property is sold the lease then terminated and if the tenants have a specific amount of time to vacate the premises, most homeowners who are in the process of selling the home with tenants in the home will make sure there is a clause in their lease advising the tenant they may have 60 to 90 days upon the execution of the actual contract of sale to find another reisendce. There are very few times when you actually when a landlord will actually not mention this to the tenants and if you intend on having the tenant stay in the property in for a residual income and perhaps having them leave for specific amount of time to complete the renovations or wait until the end of the lease that's completely on you. But in retrospect if it were my particular property and I was purchasing it from a landowner and tenants are still in the property I would offer the option to either place it in the purchase order that the landlord pays them out to the tenant to buy out the remaining time on the tenant's lease so that they can vacate within 60 to 90 days or if it was a long amount of time I would wait until the tenants for vacating the premises still operating with them to have contractors come within a property to view the property to ensure that the renovations don't want to complete would be probable.
Lesson verily understood ... being an apprentice in the area of landlordship, that's something i'd never get within the confines of a classroom, thank you for elaborating further @Glcameron
Okay- In the state of New York, if you were purchasing a property and there where tenants that had a lease, it would be the seller of the property that would be responsible for buying out the lease and having the tenant vacate. You could have the option of letting a renter stay if you like, but regardless the previous agreement would have to end because that person would no longer have any authority to enforce the agreement once the property sells. So a new agreement with a new owner will need to be made, or they will have to move out. The tenant seldom has a burden short of having to move an even then they are on notice when the property is put on the market that they need to prepare to move. Closings take enough time the tenant gets ample notice to leave once the sale closes. No one ends up on the street overnight. It is not unusual for this to happen in areas with high desirability. Investors will often buy units that need to have updating and renovations made. Especially if they know they can make their money back and then some. It isn't great for the tenant, and seldom will they stay unless the updates are minor and do not really effect their day to day living.
