The Housing Code of the Russian Federation has established rules in accordance with which eviction is carried out without providing another residential premises. The regulatory act defines the conditions under which this is allowed, as well as stipulated exceptions. Let us further consider in detail under what circumstances eviction occurs without providing another living quarters. 
Art. 91 LCD
If the tenant or relatives living with him, operate the premises for other purposes, regularly violate the interests and rights of neighbors or allow the destruction of the property, treating it ownerlessly, the landlord must warn him and his relatives about the need to stop such actions. In the event of damage, the owner may designate a reasonable time for the perpetrators to eliminate it. If the tenant or his relatives who are on the same square with him do not eliminate the violation, the landlord has the right to file a lawsuit for eviction in court.
Sun clarifications
In its Decision No. 14 of 02. 07. 2009, the Supreme Court clarified some issues that arise in the practice of applying the LC. The document sets out key guidelines that must be taken into account by authorized authorities when resolving cases. In particular, the Armed Forces indicates that eviction without providing another living quarters should be considered an extreme measure of responsibility. It is allowed only if it is established that the guilty illegal actions of entities that have not eliminated the violations have been resolved, despite all warnings expressed in any form (written, oral).
Misuse
The Housing Code contains provisions according to which the exploitation of the area can be carried out only for the purposes established by documents. The legislation allows the use of the facility for professional activities. For example, a lawyer, scientific or creative person, as well as an entrepreneur, without transferring him to non-residential premises, can work in a residential building.
At the same time, the activities carried out should not infringe on the interests of other persons (neighbors, in particular). She is obliged to comply with hygiene, fire and other requirements. Misuse will include the placement of industrial production, a warehouse, an office indoors, keeping and breeding animals in it. 
Regular violation of the rights of neighbors
Such actions should include permanent, repeatedly repeated behavioral acts of subjects that infringe on the interests of other people, which contradict sanitary, hygienic, environmental, fire and other norms and rules for using an immovable object. As a basis for eviction, for example, systematic watching of TV, listening to music, playing musical instruments at night with an excess of the permissible volume level, performing repair or construction work that violates peace and quiet, committing hooligan actions in relation to neighbors, and so on.
Ownerless circulation
As it are constant, purposeful actions of the subjects, as a result of which damage, destruction, destruction of the structural elements of the room occurs. For example, windows, doors, plumbing, floor, walls and so on break. As a rule, in such cases, a reasonable period is established to eliminate violations.Eviction in court is carried out, as practice shows, only in 10% of cases. In the rest, the authorized authorities refuse to satisfy the applications. 
Example
Suppose the municipality has filed a lawsuit to evict and deregister the defendant. According to the materials, the woman was registered in the square together with another person, to whom no claims were made. The reason for filing the application was the inaction of the defendant, which resulted in the failure to fulfill the obligation entrusted to her in performing work on warming the cold water riser, glazing windows, restoring thermal insulation on pipes, replacing the sewage system. All this infringed on the rights of neighbors.
At the same time, the administration made several attempts to resolve the dispute before the court. First of all, the defendant was ordered to bring the object into proper shape on time. Subsequently, based on complaints from neighbors, a warning was sent about the need to stop violations of their legitimate interests. The respondent received the indicated notifications, as evidenced by her list on the notices. However, the violations were not resolved. The administration sent a third warning, citing Art. 91 LCD After the next inspection, it was found that the windows were not glazed. Water and sewer pipes were not brought into proper condition, which did not allow heating to start. Thus, the defendant ignored warnings that she was facing a forced eviction.
Neighbors were invited to the hearing. They confirmed all the violations described. In addition, at the meeting materials were presented confirming the fact of neighbors contacting the police. According to the complex of evidence, the court satisfied the requirements of the administration. In this case, the executive body relied on a fairly significant database of witnesses who confirmed the facts of violations.
Asocial Behavior
In practice, quite a lot of controversy raises the question of whether eviction would be justified without providing another dwelling, if the lifestyle of the subject is considered surrounding antisocial. Consider an example. The court received a request to evict the defendant from the square, due to the fact that he was abusing alcohol and repeatedly committed unlawful acts for which he was held accountable. So immoral behavior the subject systematically violated the rights of the plaintiff living with him in the same room, as well as of the neighbors.
In this regard, the applicant considers that sharing the guilty party in the same area is no longer possible. The defendant ignored all warnings and remarks while continuing to behave immorally. Given all the circumstances of the case, the authorized authority decided to satisfy the requirements. As follows from practice, the courts state that there is no obligation on the part of local authorities to apply sanctions to such citizens established by Art. 91 LCD 
Non-compliance
The LCD established that the subject living in the room is required to keep him in good condition. This means that he must comply with fire, sanitary and other standards. In the practice of one of the courts, a case was considered on the collective application of tenants. The neighbors in their appeal pointed to a systematic violation of the rules for using the premises by one of the tenants. As a result of his inappropriate actions in the neighboring squares, as well as on the stairs, there was absolute unsanitary conditions, parasites and rodents got divorced, and unpleasant odors were present. Neighbors appealed to the department of Rospotrebnadzor. This authority authorized the examination.
As a result of the audit, it was found that the condition of the defendant's living quarters did not comply with the accepted standards.The statement was accompanied by an opinion and an inspection report. According to the last document, access to the apartment was not possible due to cluttering it from the floor to the ceiling. In addition, the neighbors provided a laboratory analysis protocol. It follows that in the adjacent premises bed bugs were detected. The administration of Moscow Region issued a warning to the defendant in connection with his improper fulfillment of the obligation to maintain the immovable object. The notice set a deadline for elimination of violations. The defendant with the specified documents was acquainted. However, all warnings were ignored. The occupied living space was not brought into proper condition, the threats to the health of neighbors were not eliminated. All facts of non-fulfillment of their duties in maintaining the immovable property were documented. The court on the basis of the evidence provided granted the neighbors' demands for the eviction of the defendant.
As can be seen from the situation, local authorities used the act of sanitary inspection. This argument is considered quite serious, since the conclusion was made by competent specialists. To strengthen the position, the plaintiff may conduct an examination of this kind several times. For example, an audit will be advisable until a warning about the need to eliminate violations, and also after the end of the period set for this. 
Claim settlement
The practice discussed above shows that eviction from an apartment requires compliance with a clear procedure and the availability of justification for requirements. Before sending the application to the authorized authority, it is necessary to collect evidence. Eviction from an apartment is carried out if:
- The facts of violations of the rules for the use of an immovable object are recorded.
- There are complaints from neighbors about a violation of their interests.
- The employer was notified of the need to stop infringing on the rights of others.
- Re-recorded facts of violations after the period established for their elimination.
- A notice has been made that the citizen will be evicted if he does not comply with the requirements and requirements.
- There was an appeal to the authority authorized to consider civil disputes.
All these activities are not legally regulated. However, this eviction procedure is considered to be the most effective and does not fall into the above 90% of disputes ending in the refusal to satisfy the requirements.
Exceptions
In accordance with the law, it is not allowed to evict members of military families who have died in the performance of their duties or in connection with diseases received during work from office housing "to nowhere". Such persons include, in particular, the liquidators of the Chernobyl disaster. It is forbidden to evict persons receiving an old-age pension from the living quarters of persons with disabilities of the 1st or 2nd group if the group was received at the workplace or due to an illness that arose during the performance of work duties. You can’t write out the relatives of the subject to whom the hostel was provided, but he himself died. The law also does not allow the eviction of orphans who received housing under the state program. If the requirements for discharge are satisfied, then these persons are given a different area. 
Debts
Entities that use immovable objects are required to keep them in good condition and regularly pay for utilities. This rule is set in Art. 153 LCD Eviction of a citizen is allowed, except for the cases indicated above, and with a systematic violation of this obligation within six months. In this case, Art. 90 LCD In this case, eviction from the apartment takes place in another area in accordance with applicable law. That is, in any case, the subject will receive 6 square meters. mA statement of claim for such a recovery of a debt may be sent to an authorized instance no later than three years from the date of formation of the corresponding debt.
Divorce
The owner of the housing may evict her ex-spouse from her if:
- She is the sole owner of the real estate. For example, acquired it before marriage, received by inheritance, under a gift agreement.
- Former spouse for a long time lives in another room.
- Before the marriage was registered, an agreement was signed in accordance with which the rules for the division of property were established in the event of a divorce.
If the object was purchased in a marriage, a woman will be very difficult to evict her husband. As a rule, in such cases, former spouses sell real estate, and the proceeds are divided among themselves. Compensation is also allowed for the husband, after which he waives all rights to the premises.
Other cases
The cases in which tenants and landlords of immovable objects are involved were considered above. However, in practice the question often arises: is it possible to evict the owners? Such a situation is quite possible. The law provides for cases of eviction of the owner if he:
- Drafted into the ranks of the sun.
- Recognized as missing.
- Registered using fictitious documents.
- Serving criminal punishment.
Other grounds for eviction may include:
- The inability to be on the same area of subjects deprived of the rights of parents and their children.
- Tenant renting an object.
- The presence in the premises of persons who do not have any grounds for this.
Conclusion
According to Art. 40 h. 1 of the Constitution, everyone has the right to housing. In this case, the legislation establishes a number of obligations for entities using it. In particular, citizens must properly maintain an immovable object, operate it without violating the interests of neighbors, and prevent destruction in it. In Art. 3, part 4 of the LCD there is a provision according to which the subject may be limited in his right to use the area. The grounds for this are provided by both the Housing Code and other federal regulations.
It should be noted that it is quite difficult to realize the possibility of restricting the rights of subjects to use immovable objects in practice. There is no clearly regulated procedure in the legislation. In such situations, it is advisable to carry out pre-trial settlement of the dispute. In case of ignoring warnings, notifications, interested parties (most often neighbors) receive a sufficiently voluminous evidence base. It is advisable to inform the executive structures of local authorities first.
Upon a complaint of citizens, an authorized inspection, sanitary-epidemiological, hygienic and other examination may be carried out. Competent structures will record all the facts of violations, draw up a reasoned opinion, and support it, if necessary, with the results of laboratory tests. All this will significantly strengthen the position of the applicant. In some cases, eviction is the only way to resolve problems. This is especially true for apartment buildings, in which many people suffer from inappropriate behavior. They can write collective appeals both to the control authorities and to the court.
