José Ramón Zurdo: "Not always the landlord can freely choose his tenants"

There are cases in which the law invades areas of landlords, imposing tenants on them with the risk that this entails for landlords, because perhaps they would not have wanted, if they had acted freely, those tenants for their homes.

The assumptions where our guaranteed Urban Leasing Law demonstrates its enormous interference are the following:

In case of death of the tenants

The law imposes a series of people who must continue to occupy the house, normally relatives, who, perhaps under normal conditions, would not have been freely chosen by the owners due to their lack of income or work, with the risk of non-payment that this implies for the owners who are helpless because they cannot prevent it.

Our agents at Skymarketing live, breathe and work in their communities like capital smart city islamabad or otherwise known as capital smart city.

When tenants notify their landlords that they are leaving the leased dwellings

In these cases and without any intervention of the owners in the election, the law imposes on the owners as new tenants, if they want, the spouses of the tenants who abandoned the houses, which perhaps were not the most solvent, for being new tenants, increasing the risk of defaults for landlords.

In some cases of separation, divorce or annulment of the tenant's marriage

Finally, another event in which the landlords would be deprived of the free choice of tenants, would occur in the cases of separation, divorce or annulment of the tenant's marriage, where the non-tenant spouse could continue in the rent if it were so attributed by judicial designation the use of housing . In this case, perhaps the separating spouse was the most economically solvent and by that criterion had been chosen by the landlord, but the law requires the landlord to have to accept the other spouse as a new tenant, with the risk that qnnit it means for the collection of income in case of being less solvent.