The French system just described is in force in its entirety in Belgium (Code Civil, Arts. 1713 et seq.) and has been followed to some extent in Italy (Civil Code, Arts. 1568 et seq.), Spain (Civil Code, Arts. 1542 et seq.), and Portugal (Civil Code, Arts. 1298 et seq., 1595 et seq.). In all these countries there are varieties of emphyteutic tenure; and in Italy the mezzadria or metayer system (see Civil Code, Arts. 1647 et seq.) exists. The German Civil Code adopts the distinction between bail a loyer (Mietz, Arts. 535 et seq.) and bail a ferme (Pacht, Arts. 581 et seq.). Dutch law (Civil Code, Arts. 1583 et seq.) is similar to the French. (See also Argentine law of 1921 [Nos. II, 125] as to leases of houses, apartments and shops.) _ .
Since the law of landlord and tenant in the United States developed from the English law, it is substantially identical with that law without the more recent statutory modifications of the latter. Certain statutory changes have, however, been made in some of the States and there seems a growing tendency to treat the relation between landlord and tenant more as one of con tract and less as one of distinct and separate property owner ship as was the traditional common law view. Statutes usually permit a letting for a period of one year or less by oral agree ment. A lease for a longer period must be made by a formal instrument of conveyance, subject to the rule, as in England, that an oral contract of lease may be ordered specifically to be enforced if there has been part performance by the person seeking the remedy. Many State statutes also provide that a holding over by a tenant after the expiration of his lease shall only con stitute a holding from month to month or at will and not, as at common law, for a like period as the original letting. The land lord is generally given a statutory remedy of a summary nature for quickly ejecting a tenant who has failed to perform the obli gations of his lease or whose lease has terminated. The ancient remedy of distress whereby the landlord may enter, seize and retain personal property in the possession of the tenant until arrears of rent are paid is still available in many States, although in a considerable number it has been abolished, leaving as the landlord's remedies only the ordinary legal processes for the collec tion of a debt and the summary procedure for ejection of the tenant (see RENT).
The law concerning covenants contained in the lease is similar to the English law except that covenants seem to be held more freely assignable than in England and there is a greater tendency to treat the promises of each party as mutually dependent, so that non-performance by one excuses performance by the other. Thus many States hold a covenant by a landlord not to enter into a com peting business with that of the tenant to be enforceable by an assignee of the tenant. The English "implied warranty of pos session"—under which it is the duty of the landlord to deliver possession of the leased premises to the tenant—is enforced in many States though denied in some. There is a conflict of author ity whether, as under the English law, there is an "implied war ranty of habitability" of furnished premises let for dwelling pur poses. Thus tenants have been excused from accepting premises infested by rats, cockroaches or bugs. The rule is, however, denied in many jurisdictions. There is also considerable authority in the United States to the effect that failure by a landlord to perform his covenants to repair or heat the premises excuses the tenant on his part from performance of his covenants and justifies him in refusing to pay rent or in abandoning the premises (see cases collected in 28 American Law Reports 1448). Somewhat
similar results follow also by application of the doctrine of "con structive eviction" whereby a tenant may treat as an act of evic tion by the landlord any act of the landlord on neighbouring premises such as conducting a nuisance or creating a disturbance, or any omission of the landlord to perform a duty assumed by con tract or otherwise, which renders the premises unfit for the ten ancy. The tenant is, however, required to abandon the premises immediately or else no such eviction is shown. Beyond these situ ations the doctrine that a lease is more a contract than a convey ance has not as yet found very general acceptance. Thus if a part of the premises is destroyed, the tenant in the absence of agree ment must still continue to pay rent and to perform his covenants. This rule has, however, been changed by statute in several States. The tenant is excused from further obligation under his lease by total actual eviction by the landlord, or by eviction by title para mount, or by taking by eminent domain. Where the eviction is from only a part of the premises, the tenant may, if it is by act of the landlord, either abandon his lease or remain in possession without paying rent. But where it is by title paramount he is not entitled to abandon his lease and must pay a proportionate part of the rent. The authorities are conflicting, where there is partial eviction by eminent domain, as to whether the tenant should pay rent and claim compensation for the taking, or receive a reduction in his 'rent without any share in such compensation.
The passage of the 18th (Prohibition) amendment to the U.S. Constitution raised many interesting problems in the law of land lord and tenant. Where the lease stated that the premises were let for saloon purposes, it has been ruled that such use is not desig nated as exclusive and the lease is still effective, the premises being available for other purposes. Where the lease expressly restricted the use of the premises to saloon purposes, some courts still hold that the tenant must bear the loss of the change in law made by the Government, while others hold that the tenant is excused from further performance of the lease (22 A.L.R. 819). In the Pro hibition Enforcement (Volstead) Act (tit. 2, s. 23) it is provided that a violation of that act by a tenant shall, at the option of the lessor, work a forfeiture of the lease. It has been held that where a landlord lets premises to a tenant in order that the latter may violate the Prohibition Act, the landlord is a participant in the wrong so that the courts will not aid him in enforcing his lease.
The law of waste by a tenant is similar to the English law, except that in certain parts of the country it may be considered good husbandry for a tenant to work mines or to cut trees in order to develop the land. No technical distinction is made between voluntary and permissive waste ; either may be actionable. An cient statutes coming from the English law providing for treble damages for waste are usually strictly limited by the courts as not applicable to modern conditions.
See L. A. Jones, Law of Landlord and Tenant (1906) ; McAdam, The Rights, Remedies and Liabilities of Landlord and Tenant (4th ed. 191o) ; H. T. Tiffany, Law of Landlord and Tenant (1912) ; Corpus Juris, vols. xxxv., xxxvi. (1924), "Landlord and Tenant."