Talking about contradicting this could be one of the worse I ever heard.
There is this mythical creature known as a “good landlord” who makes $1000 a month. They don’t need this money so decide to give it all to charity.
Now it turns out the house is being rented below market rates. They could kick out the current tenant who is an old lady who will struggle to find somewhere new, but be able to charge $1200. This would give an extra $200 to a charity that could be providing more housing in third world countries, or saving lives etc.
Arguably doing more good than providing housing to one person.
What should the landlord do?
Utilitarianism would say they should charge the maximum they can possibly get away with, since that money could be spent on third-world country charities and that can go a lot further there. However, they are still directly forcing someone into a very difficult situation.
There is exactly what a landlord did to an elderly woman, not say what he did is right or wrong but it’s just terribly contradicting.
What if the market rate was now $1.5k or $3k, does that change the situation? What if $200 now goes even further in the charity the landlord was giving to, does that affect anything?
Another option is since they don’t need the money they drop the rent to $800 to help the old lady get by. But that takes $200 away from the charity now.
So most likely the landlord is lying about charity and he does not donate money at all.