Should I Evict or Raise Rent to Force Out Month-to-Month Tenants? The Answer Is Neither

The call that made me shake my head

A landlord I mentor called me last Tuesday. His tenants had been month-to-month for two years. When they signed the original lease, they told him they carried renters insurance. He never checked. Last month, they asked to move into the vacant two-bedroom upstairs. When he asked for a certificate of insurance—just routine—they admitted they'd never bought a policy. Then they got pushy. "We've been good tenants, you owe us the bigger unit," one of them said. He was ready to evict them or hit them with a 30% rent increase to make them leave.

I told him neither. End the tenancy with the proper notice.

Month-to-month means it can end

A month-to-month tenancy is a periodic tenancy. It renews automatically every month until either side gives written notice to end it. The notice period depends on where you live. Where I am, it's three full months, and you don't need a reason. Some places require 30 days, some 60. Check your local tenancy rules before you serve anything—this is not legal advice, and I'm not a lawyer.

Renters insurance is a policy the tenant buys. It covers their belongings and their liability if they cause damage or someone gets hurt in the unit. It does not cover my building. I always ask for a certificate of insurance before I hand over keys—five minutes avoids this exact mess. A tenant claiming to have it when they don't is a red flag, but it's rarely grounds for an eviction on its own.

Eviction is a court process for specific causes—nonpayment of rent, illegal activity, severe property damage, or threats to safety. Lying about insurance is a problem. It's not usually one of those listed reasons. In 20 years of managing, I've never seen a judge evict someone solely for a missing insurance policy.

Raise the rent? That's the wrong tool.

I've watched landlords try to force tenants out with a big rent increase. It fails often. If the tenants pay the increase, you're stuck with them at the new rate. If they don't, you still have to serve a notice to end the tenancy for nonpayment. Then you wait out the notice period and maybe end up at a hearing. You've made the ending slower and more personal. I've raised rent 5% when market conditions justified it, but I never used a percentage to push someone out. A no-reason notice to end the tenancy—where your local law allows it—does the same job without the fight.

I've managed buildings for over 20 years. I've ended dozens of month-to-month tenancies. When I wanted a unit back, I served the notice. I didn't negotiate, didn't offer a bigger unit, didn't apologize. The tenants got the notice, they knew the date, and we both moved on.

What I'd do here

If you're in this situation, I'd serve the written notice to end the tenancy. Keep a copy. Hand it to them or send it by mail with tracking, whichever your local rules accept. Then stop responding to requests about the larger unit. If they come back with apologies or promises, you can listen, but you don't have to change the date. You've already been fair. From what you wrote, you gave them concessions—maybe a break on rent, maybe waived fees. That was enough. I once gave a tenant 60 days instead of the required 30 because I wanted to be generous. They used the extra month to make the turnover worse. Stick to the required notice.

The day I stopped trying to fix tenant relationships that had already broken down, my job got easier. Lying about insurance and then pressuring you for a bigger unit tells you the tenancy has run its course. Give the notice, keep the copy in your file, and mark the calendar for the date the unit comes back to you. For the last fifteen years, I've used a paper calendar for move-out dates—crossed off in red once the keys are back.