Refusal of the renter for unreasonable reasons
If the landlord has not agreed to allow the tenant to bring in an alternative tenant or sub-tenant, for reasons or unreasonable conditions, then the tenant can do so even without the landlord’s consent.
And of course, the question arises as to what ‘unreasonable’ reasons or conditions are.
There is no direct answer to this, so it is necessary to understand which considerations will be considered relevant and legitimate.
There is also no decision as to whether the range of reasonable considerations is limited to the personality of the transfer recipient.
Reasons relating to financial considerations will often be considered legitimate.
Thus, if the alternative tenant does not have the same financial strength or financial history as the existing tenant, then these considerations will be considered legitimate.
On the other hand, considerations arising from a murky relationship between the landlord and the new tenant may be a justifiable reason for refusal.
It can be said that the test tends to be an objective test of the reasonable person, and sometimes subjective depending on the reason why the landlord rented the apartment to the current tenant.
Thus, in the event that the landlord rented the apartment precisely because of his good and special relationship with the current tenant, it would be legitimate for those ‘subjective’ considerations to be the basis for his decision to oppose the transfer of rights to someone. Improper considerations regarding discrimination on the basis of race and religion may constitute a legitimate and substantive consideration but the ruling tends to favor the objective test.
In addition, the legislature’s approach is to allow flexibility and transfer of tenant rights.
And therefore, he reduced the possibilities of discretion of the landlord. And perhaps from a broader perspective the amount of land is limited in the country and therefore the flexibility of their transfer should be allowed.