Only thing it says is this...
Tenant will not sub-rent, sub-lease or allow any other person to share apartment other than tenant and persons listed on lease as Permanant Resident.
The Landlord reserves the right to eject objectionable tenants. The Landlors is to be sole judge.
Then you could have a problem. Yours is the only name on the lease. The lease expressly prohibits any other occupant.
My son is not listed as a Permanant Resident because she told me because he was immediate family he didnt have to be.
What you "told her" and what she "told you" is meaningless and unenforceable.
Is it really? Couldn't what the landlord said be a verbal contract? I understand that it may be hard to prove that she said it if she denies it but that doesn't mean that verbal promises are unenforceable just because they are verbal. Or?
It's an important question and worthy of discussion. And it illustrates how complicated contract law can be.
There is a doctrine in contract law called the Parol Evidence Rule. It prevents a party to a written contract from presenting extrinsic evidence that contradicts or adds to the written terms of the contract that appears to be whole. The supporting rationale is that since the contracting parties have reduced their agreement to a single and final writing, the extrinsic evidence of past agreements or terms should not be considered when interpreting that writing, as the parties had decided to ultimately leave them out of the contract.
Where things become complicated is that there are two other doctrines that might have a contradictory effect.
One is Detrimental Reliance. If the tenant relied on the landlady's assurance that the son was no problem and such reliance caused detriment to the tenant, the tenant might prevail. However, it is unclear whether the conversation occurred prior to signing the lease or after move-in, or exactly when the son moved in, or whether there would even be a detriment to the tenant if the son has to move out and get his own place. Clearly the son is an adult and was not a party to the contract and it is not his detriment that is an issue.
The other is Waiver and Estoppel. When a party fails to enforce the terms of a contract when the right to do so accrues, that party may have waived the right to enforce it later and be barred from doing so. There are lease provisions that eliminate the possibility of that kind of waiver and, at the moment, we don't know if the lease does that.
If it was me I'd check on your state's definition of a tenant and if your son could be considered a tenant under that law
I have searched all over the net and cant find a clear definition for the term "Tenant" in North Carolina. North Carolina laws seems so vague...or maybe its I'm not understanding when reading.
When there is no statutory definition of a word, the next place to look is in the contract. If there is no clear definition of a word in the contract, the next place to look is case law. When there is no definition in case law, the courts will either use the dictionary definition or create a definition that sets a precedent.
Let's see where we end up with that.
There does not appear to be a definition of the word "tenant" in the NC landlord tenant statute.
There does appear to be a definition of tenant in the contract. My own opinion is that it's a clear and unambiguous definition. The tenant is the person that signed the lease and no other (according to the quoted prevision).
But for the sake of argument, let's follow that further and look for some case law. Well, I googled and couldn't find one specific to NC but I did find a reference to a Law Review article entitled:
Who is a Tenant? The Correct Definition of the Status in North Carolina, 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 79 (1995)
This can probably be found in a law library if you want to do some legal research.
But if nothing helpful turns up there, the default is the dictionary definition:
Tenant: A person who has been given the right to use and occupy rental property owned by another person, usually through a lease or rental agreement. The tenant's right to exclusive enjoyment of the property is typically granted in exchange for an agreed-upon amount of money, and is limited to a fixed time period (usually set forth in the lease).
That definition does not controvert the definition in the lease.
tell the landlord that she has to take him to court to evict him if she wants him to move.
That's certainly an option. But I cannot comment on whether it's a good or bad option.
I really don't believe that she can just turn around and kick him out after five months of living there.
That's the Waiver and Estoppel thing again and might be a defense against eviction. Then again, might not.
Even if you wanted him out yourself you may have a problem with it if he is legally a tenant. A person does not necessarily have to be on a lease or pay rent in order to be considered a tenant. Check your state law to make sure though.
That has brought us back to the probability that the lease defined who the tenant was. Unfortunately, there's no way to predict whether or not the landlady would be successful in evicting the son (or both for the unlisted occupant).
One last thing.
"The Landlord reserves the right to eject objectionable tenants. The Landlord is to be sole judge."
That provision seems to render moot any of the other arguments. Apparently after 5 months, the landlady has found the son objectionable and the tenant expressly allowed the landlady to be the sold judge of the objectionability. That allows the landlady to evict the son based on her own subjective opinion regardless of whether or not anybody agrees with her opinion.
The tenant presumably read and understood that provision before signing it.