TPN Lease agreement with VERY dodgy clauses and logic

According to TPN stats, 82% of tenants are good. So must these "good" tenants pick up the tab for 18% of bad tenants.

I recently became tenant for the first time. I purchased another property from an specific agency but needed to rent for a while. My application was approved, I received a TPN lease by email. It was signed by the estate agency already. I signed the lease after cancelling some clauses, informed them, but was given verbal confirmation of lease and instructed to pay the deposit which I did.

Two weeks later, I was told that the house is no longer available to me. I believe it has to do with what I removed from the lease.

#1. The landlord can give me 2 months notice at any time during the fixed term lease. No penality. Is this really then a fixed term lease?

So the house belongs to someone who owns a different estate agency. Why did she not let her own house? As I have it, she fell for a property she was contacted to sell, purchased it on the spot and may need to sell the old house. In the meantime, they put a tenant into the property since owner can terminate the contract and letting agent can claim they were not aware. The unsuspecting tenant will be paying the rent while the house is up for sale as well as deal with all the viewings, knowing as soon as a sale happens, they will be given notice. I don't find this OK at all.

Why bother with a fixed term lease if it can be terminated by a landlords at any time "when he needs to move in or sell" In the past landlords had to negotiate early termination with their good tenants. Bad tenants can be evicted following the fair (albeit frustrating) processes by RHA and CPA. These tenants can be stopped.

TPN's explanation for this clause is: This clause is extremely important. In terms of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, a Landlord may only terminate a Lease Agreement if a Tenant remains in breach of the Lease Agreement for more than 20 (Twenty) business days. This puts the Landlord in a very precarious position. As such, by agreeing to this clause, the Tenant is giving the Landlord some leeway in the event that the Landlord intends to sell the Premises or move into the Premises himself. This clause will also assist Landlords in the event that a Tenant tries to invoke the provisions of the common law remedy of Huur Gaat Voor Koop, as it specifically precludes the Tenant from making use of this remedy, which the Tenant would be able to do were this clause not inserted into the Lease Agreement. Very dodgy logic for all those unsuspecting 82% good tenants out there.

I am OK with an early termination, but then the landlord/estate agent ensures I, as "good" tenant, have another property to go to and my relocation is paid - just like I have to pay your advertising and costs when I terminate early.

#2. The tenant will at all times maintain adequate insurance in respect of all movable property brought onto the Premises, which shall include all parking bay(s) set out in item 1.5, by an insurance company of the Tenant’s choice and make prompt and regular payment of all insurance premiums in respect of such insurance.

I fail to understand what a tenant's personal insurance has to do with his landlord. Expecially if the Tenant specifically acknowledges and agrees IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH that the Landlord shall in no way be liability any damage caused, for whatever reason, to any movable property brought onto the Premises, including all parking bay(s), by the Tenant;

Who monitors these lease agreements? Or are they evaluated when some brave soul brings a claim to the tribunal?