請您先看原本 (注意這是 2006 年生效的規定)
Topic No. 151: Subletting and Replacement of Roommates
Topic No. 151: Subletting and Replacement of Roommates
In general, a tenant's right to sublet all or a part of a rental unit (which includes getting a new roommate) depends on whether the lease or rental agreement permits it. If the agreement is silent on the issue, then subletting is generally permitted. Many leases or rental agreements contain a "consent clause," which requires that the landlord approve a new roommate or subtenant. Even where a lease absolutely forbids subletting, the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and Rules and Regulations allow tenants to replace departing roommates on a one-for-one basis, as long as the replacement roommate meets the landlord's regular, reasonable application standards and the tenant is not subletting the entire unit, but only replacing a roommate.
For tenancies covered by the Rent Ordinance, the right to have a specific number of roommates, whether express or implied, is included in the definition of "Housing Services" under the Ordinance. This means that the landlord's unreasonable withholding of consent to a replacement roommate can be the basis of a Tenant Petition for a rent reduction based on a substantial decrease in housing services. The amount of the rent reduction would be the proportional share of the rent that the departing roommate paid.
The Rules and Regulations set forth procedures that a tenant must follow in order to obtain the landlord's consent to sublet. The procedures contain specific time limits that must be followed by landlords and tenants. Section 6.15A contains the procedures for situations where the rental agreement includes an absolute prohibition against subletting. Section 6.15B governs situations where the subletting provision contains a "consent clause." To receive a copy of Section 6.15A or 6.15B, you can fax it to yourself through our Fax Back system by calling 252-4660 or visit our website at www.sfgov.org/rentboard.
A tenant may not be evicted for violating a no-subletting clause if the landlord unreasonably withheld consent to a replacement roommate. Furthermore, for agreements entered into on or after May 28, 1998, a tenant may not be evicted for violating a no-subletting clause unless the prohibition against subletting was adequately disclosed in writing and agreed to by the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant may request the landlord to consent to a new replacement roommate only one time per existing tenant residing in the unit in any 12 month period, absent good cause for additional requests.
The landlord may serve any new roommate with a written notice under Section 6.14 stating that the new roommate is not an "original tenant" and that when the last of the original tenants vacates the premises, the landlord may impose an unlimited rent increase on the remaining occupants.
June 2006
主題編號151：分租及更換室友
一般來說，租戶是否有權分租整個或一部份的出租單位（包括找新室友），要視乎租約或租務協議的內容而定。如果協議上沒有提到這個問題，通常都可以分租。有很多租約或租務協議裡麵列有一個「同意條款」，規定必須得到房東同意，才可以讓新的室友或分租住客入住。就算租約列明絕對不準分租，三藩市租務條例及房屋管理處規則也容許租戶以一個換一個的形式更換要搬走的室友，隻要新的室友能符合房東的正常合理申請標準，而租戶並非將整個單位出租，而隻是更換一名室友。
在受租務條例管製的出租情況下，對於招收特定人數的室友，無論是明確還是暗示的權利，都包括在租務條例的「房屋服務」定義之內。這表示，房東無理拒絕讓用來頂替的新室友入住，可以作為因房屋服務嚴重減少而申請減租的租戶申訴理由。減租額將與搬走的室友所付的一份房租相稱。
房屋管理處規則規定了租戶在請求房東同意讓他分租時必須遵守的步驟。有關步驟包括房東及租戶雙方都要遵守的特定時間限製。第6.15A段列出了如果租務協議中列明絕對不準分租時應該採取的步驟。第6.15B段適用於分租規定中含有「同意條款」的情況。如果想索取第6.15A或6.15B段的內容，可以致電252-4660到我們的傳真回應係統索取這方麵的傳真文件，或瀏覽我們的網站www.sfgov.org/rentboard。
如果房東無理拒絕讓用來頂替的新室友入住，就無權以違反不準分租條款為理由強迫租戶搬走。此外，如果是在1998年5月28日或之後簽訂的協議，就不可以用違反不準分租條款為理由強迫租戶搬走，除非有關禁止分租的項目，已在租期開始時以書麵充份透露給租戶知道，並得到租戶的同意。
每名住在單位內的現有租戶，在任何12個月內，隻可以向房東申請一次讓用來頂替的新室友入住；除非有很適當的理由，才可以作額外的申請。
房東可以根據第6.14段的規定，向任何新的室友發出書麵通告，說明新室友並不是「原有租戶」，當最後一名原有租戶搬走時，房東就有權對其餘的住客實施無限製的加租。
至於您所說的 Eviction Protections 2.0
您應該發現,你們的市長並沒有簽署這個法案,所以問題不是在於政府當局,而是議會的運作,這是問題...(所以不要告訴老貓隻有"中國好",習老大一句話,政通全國....) 事實上這個法案對於新移民與學生是相當好的,因為這可以避免新移民與學生被一些不懂行的"業餘房東"欺侮,然而在此同時,這個法案其實也給予房東相當好的規範來處理一些不交租強住的情況,因此個人的看法是"船應該順水行",房東業者應該更懂法,善於利用法律來解決問題,而不是"自行發明"原因與法歸來驅逐惡客,重要的是不要人雲亦雲,應該了解"作房東"是一個專業的工作而不是一個業餘的娛樂,這是老貓認為這個法案應該帶給房東們的一個省思....
http://www.sfexaminer.com/mayor-ed-lee-does-not-veto-eviction-protection-2-0-but-leaves-it-unsigned/
