Anyone who has purchased a home is regarded as having a number of inviolate rights. In a sense, so has the person who has rented the use of a property for a term. If the renter is fulfilling the terms of that rental agreement, i.e., not using the property for illegal purposes, is current in payment of rental due, and does due diligence and vigilance in the maintenance of the property during his tenancy, has, or should have, essentially the same inviolate rights. As the “bundle of rights” that supposedly adhere to the property are partly shared with the holder of title to the property, some of the rights are either bartered away as part of the rental agreement, or are by nature not transferred to the renter, in that the renter cannot put the property up for security in any financial transaction, but is likewise not responsible for payment of any liens that may have been incurred against the title of the property.
I know, “MEGO” - mine eyes glaze over. This may be WAY more information than anybody asked for, but does the “castle doctrine” apply on rental property”? The short answer is “Yes, but...”
Well.. technically, thanks to the overbearing govt.. we don’t even ‘own’ the property we paid for... we still have to pay taxes on something we already own :/