Depends on the legal language of the lease. If there’s any language regarding the dwelling being habitable, then the lack of a license makes it by definition n

Depends on the legal language of the lease. If there’s any language regarding the dwelling being habitable, then the lack of a license makes it by definition not a habitable dwelling and thus the he never fulfilled his end of the agreement, making it necessary to refund the rent paid. In other words, services might be rendered, but not the services as agreed upon in the lease. The secondary matter would be if occupying someone’s property is an allowable remedy until the payment is made, which is a bit more thorny, on the other hand, occupation notwithstanding, it’s not uncommon to maintain possession of someone’s property until payment is made as a form of leverage (e.g. keeping a customer’s laptop until they’ve made payment for repairs made on said laptop). What’s interesting is that he’s a Netherlands native, but then acts stumped about LA’s Just Cause requirement. In the Netherlands leases for consumers are always under a Just Cause principle and pretty much the only way to cancel a lease as a landlord is non-payment. End dates in leases are void, landlord wanting to occupy the property themselves is not a valid reason to cancel the lease, sale of property is not a valid reason to cancel the lease (lease gets transferred over to new owner). Basically the only way to get a tenant out is if the tenant cancels the lease themselves or if there’s a significant period of non-payment.