Home Eviction Case Study

The law supports the area that may lead to the eviction of a tenant from the landlord’s property. In this case, the landlord can’t remove the tenant from the home based on the lease agreement he has signed. The contract is already foreseen for reasons that could lead to the eviction of the property. Nevertheless, my argument may be based on the actions of the landlord and the tenant, but the landlord can’t force out the tenant without a notification of eviction because the damages were caused because the landlord had not fully renovated the home on time. From a legal point of view, eviction can only take place in the event of a complete breach of the lease or an inability of the tenant to pay the landlord the rent. According to the law, the landlord is trying to establish the so called constructive eviction for the tenant. This is because he is trying to make the home uninhabitable for the tenant as he is unwilling to repair the leak from the roof. In agreement with the law, the landlord is limited to leasing the tenant as a retribution of the actions taken by the tenant in connection with

Throwing the baseball bat against the wall and damaging the drywall and immobilizing an electrical socket is an act of self-willed damage to the property. The tenant is required to keep the property in the same condition he has found it under the law and must assume liability for all actions that cause actual damage to the property. Furthermore, the landlord is not precisely responsible for damages caused by the actions of the tenant, but he is straightly accountable for the damages of the leak on the roof that caused damage to the tenant’s furniture and valuable items. Since the law supports that the landlord has an obligation to make sure that the property is permanently in a habitable condition and has the obligation to make the necessary repairs on