>>the needs of the tenants trump the needs of the landlords > Which tenant? The one that is currently in the building, or the one that could move in and pay re

>>the needs of the tenants trump the needs of the landlords > Which tenant? The one that is currently in the building, or the one that could move in and pay rent? The one currently in the building. This is quite clear cut, the two tenants are not equivalent. Rationale: The one that could move in and pay straight away almost certainly has a place to live already. It's possible they are currently homeless and yet able to start paying immediately and convince you it's sustainable, but it's very unlikely. The one being asked to leave is likely to end up homeless, in a pandemic. Unless your place is significantly above market rates and there's a realistic cheaper place available to them. Even if there's a cheaper place they could move to, with all the checks in place, most potential new landlords will reject a tenant who just got kicked out of somewhere for non-payment of rent. There may also be high competition for a small number of "last resort" places to live which accept people in this situation. And moving when you have no money is also very difficult, sometimes impossible and they will lose their possessions too. So if the value being prioritised here is to minimise avoidable homelessness, then priority should be given to the person who would be made homeless, not the person who wouldn't.