My statement was based on the assumption that the "Father" was an occupant. The post was not clear because it said "let him stay". I assumed the Father, but now realize the Father may have been asking to the "him" meaning the son/relative/tenant stay. Also, if the Father was an occupant, usually, the complaint covers known and unknown occupants. So if Father was an occupant, he could argue with Tenant. As far as "Cut and dry". Maybe, maybe not, depending on the Facts. It's not always about Rent and Non-payment. What about Due process? You can lose cases on faulty process alone. Many cases have been won and lost because of this oversight.