The point is that such a contract requires a central authority that must be capable of evicting the tenant. A "smart contract" which is just some code running on a computer certainly can't do that.
1. An incentive to evict someone. Money. Someone needs to get paid to actually do the eviction because they are taking on some risk - physical in this case. It doesn't matter how they get paid. A smart contract can do that.
2. "Social/Legal consensus" that performing the physical eviction is the right thing to do. The person performing the eviction should not get punished for it. If the state and breach of contract is transparent on the blockchain this consensus could be achieved.
3. A way to confirm the eviction to pay the evictor.
Also, you are ignoring the fact that, at least where I live, only one entity can legally evict a tenant - the county sheriff (in their role as an agent of the court). You cant just hire some random thugs.
Welcome to mafia shakedowns
> "Social/Legal consensus" that performing the physical eviction is the right thing to do.
That "social/legal consensus" is called laws, and they are enforced through a central authority.
> If the state and breach of contract is transparent on the blockchain
Who exactly is deciding "the state and breach of contract"? You can start from the fact that smart contracts are not even written in a human language.
> A way to confirm the eviction to pay the evictor.
People were paying each other for thousands of years without smart contracts