Its pity that landlord suffers in the hands of tenant. Landlord purchases the property investing his hard earned money. Tenant just by paying 0.1% to 0.3% of property value as rent per month has right to not evict. Is this justified? Hardly the tenants pay 1 to 3% of the property value as rents in most of the cases in a year.

I do agree for commercial properties there will be some kind of difficulties in vacating the premises as there will be a set business. Why the residential properties should have these benefits. Residental properties will not effect the tenant as there is always a scope of getting a new residential property if not at that locality then at some other locality.

The law should change Landlord should have a right on his property. The best thing is if the owner gives in writing for 6 months time vacating the premisis, it should be the good time for the tenant to vacare the residential property. No Tenant should have right to stay in the property if given 6 months notice. Similarly for commercial properties 1 year time should be maximum for vacating the premises.

If you see the number of cases going in courts are increasing at the rapid speed. In this scenario every landlord will have to go to court one time or the other. Why one should buy property give it on rent and get the headache? Just by paying fraction of the cost of the property why the tenant has to enjoy the so called rights?

If any law maker is reading this will surely appreciate my point and will change the law in due course.