Also known as: implied covenants of quiet enjoyment · covenant of quiet enjoyment · quiet enjoyment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A covenant implied in every lease under which the landlord warrants that the tenant will not be disturbed in possession by any person holding a superior legal right to the premises and promises to defend the tenant against such disturbance while also refraining from actual or constructive eviction.
Metro Auto Service leased a corner building from Paula that included both indoor bays and a fenced lot. Nora held superior title to the lot and evicted Metro from that portion only. Metro retained the bays but lost storage capacity and sued Paula for breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment in the lease. The court allowed Metro to continue the lease on the remaining space while recovering an abatement of rent and damages for the lost portion.
Cooper leased basement space from Reste Realty for business use. Heavy rains repeatedly flooded the premises and rendered them unusable. Cooper vacated after notice and stopped paying rent. The court held that the flooding constituted a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment because it substantially interfered with the tenant's beneficial use of the premises.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Tenants leased apartments above a lounge operated under the same landlords. Loud music and crowds from the lounge made the apartments uninhabitable at night. The tenants gave notice, the landlords failed to correct the problem, and the tenants vacated. The court found a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment because the disturbance was attributable to the landlords and substantially interfered with the tenants' use.
Javins leased an apartment from First National Realty. Multiple housing code violations existed at the start of the tenancy and persisted despite complaints. Javins withheld rent and defended an eviction action by asserting breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. The court recognized that serious code violations could constitute a constructive eviction excusing further rent obligations.
Hannan contracted to lease premises from Dusch beginning on a set date. Dusch failed to remove a holdover tenant by that date and could not deliver possession. Hannan sued for breach before taking occupancy. The court held that the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment includes the landlord's duty to deliver possession free from paramount claims at the commencement of the term.
Schultz resided in a home on a public street where anti-abortion protesters regularly gathered. The protesters did not enter the property or act under the landlord's direction. Schultz sued the landlord claiming breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. The court ruled that the covenant protects against interference by the landlord or those claiming under the landlord but does not extend to independent third-party conduct on public property.
No. The covenant protects the tenant only against disturbance by the landlord or persons holding a superior legal right to possession. Independent third-party conduct on public property or by strangers does not trigger liability under the covenant.
Supporting sources
The covenant is breached when the landlord or someone acting under the landlord causes a substantial interference with the tenant's use and enjoyment that continues after reasonable notice. Courts treat such interference as a constructive eviction allowing the tenant to vacate and stop paying rent.
Supporting sources
The tenant may continue the lease on the remaining portion and obtain a proportionate rent abatement plus damages for losses caused by the eviction. Automatic termination of the entire lease is not required when the tenant can still use the un-evicted space for its intended purpose.
Supporting sources
Yes. The covenant includes the landlord's duty to deliver possession free from paramount claims at the commencement of the term. A tenant facing an assertion of superior title before entry may terminate the lease and recover damages.
Supporting sources
…therein. [^maj-37]: Ingalls v. Hobbs , 156 Mass. 348, 31 N.E. 286 (1892). [^maj-38]: The cases developing the doctrines of “quiet enjoyment” and “constructive eviction” are the most important. See 2 R. Powell, supra Note 10, ¶ 225 [3]. See also Gladden v. Walker & Dunlop , 83 U.S.App.D.C. 224, 168 F.2d 321 (1948) (landlord…