I would say regardless of what the law says, from a business perspective, selling images as stock of properties you did not have express permission to do so from the property owner is a great way to develop a reputation of someone not to hire. This is especially the case for residential interiors.
FYI, I have photographed interiors of residences shortly before the sale of the property where the resident was very concerned about the usage of the images even though they would shortly be vacating the property.
I tend to only license images of interiors beyond the commissioning client to other project partners, such as the GC, interior designer or material manufacturers, but even that last one could be problematic for a residence.
Edit
With this being said, I once had to create a pano looking over Central Park from (roughly a 12th floor) penthouse for a film production, which is a greatly desired yet rare view that would be photographed at the resolution needed to be used in a production. The homeowner made the production sign all kinds of releases that his view would only be used in this film. I was operating as an independent contractor and was not under any such conditions given I was not actually employed by the production. Plus, by law, there is no way you can ague in court, successfully, that you can control how your "view" is used, especially if nothing you own or lease is within the image. Finally, I always maintain full ownership of my copyrights. So in this instance, hell yeah I have that up as stock.
Now I would never do this for an interior image though.
