If we had adequate state-provided housing available at short notice for any household, as a social safety net, then laws about eviction could be considerably stricter without violating renter’s basic human rights. I doubt you’ll find much support for that policy change from landlords though; the competition would likely reduce prevailing rents quite a bit.
Clearly tenant rights aren’t (and shouldn’t be) unlimited, but the protections for tenants currently in place were established to counter bad abuses by landlords.
Various measures to preventing shoplifting (whether food or cameras) are not really comparable in my opinion.
How much are we willing to protect the investor from risk, in this particular case, at the potential expense of a tenant's ability to have shelter? Obviously we need some form of balance but the finer details of it are wildly arguable.
Is a camera rental company just "renting out cameras they don't need"? Maintaining rental properties is a livelihood, a bad faith tenant is just as abusive as a bad faith landlord.
People buy properties on loans to rent them out, when a tenant refuses to pay the rent, the utilities and the loan payments fall to the landlord. The obvious effect of this is that only people who can afford to lease and rent many properties out at once to spread the cost of this can become landlords.
Furthermore, if this dwelling is some part of an existing home, and you can't evict them for violating the lease agreement, then you have unwanted strangers who don't care about you, forcibly staying in your own home. You don't have to be a steenking bourgeois to own a home, and you don't need to be "advantaged" to draw the short end of this straw.
Some countries have a mix of laws for tenant relations, for example sublet agreements in some places are afforded little or none of the extreme tenant rights that direct let agreements are. That would likely have helped in this article's situation.