EVICTION. Deprivation of the possession of lands or tenements.
Originally and technically, the disposses sion must be by judgment of liw; if other wise, it was an ouster; Lansing v. Van Al styne, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 563, note ; Webb v. Alexander, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 285 ; but the ne cessity of legal process was long ago aban doned in England ; 4 Term 617 ; and in this country also it is settled that there need not be legal process ; Greenvault v. Davis, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 645 ; Grist v. Hodges, 14 N. C. 200; Green v. Irving, 54 Miss. 450, 28 Am. Rep. 360. The word is difficult to define with technical accuracy ; 17 C. B. 30; but it may be fairly stated that any actual entry -and dispossession, adversely and lawfully made under paramount title, will be an eviction ; Rawle, Coy. § 133.
Total eviction takes place when the pos sessor is wholly deprived of his rights in the premises. • Partial eviction takes place when the possessor is deprived of only a portion of them ; as, if a third person comes in and ejects him from the possession of half his land, or establishes a right to some ease ment over it, by a title which is prior to that under which he holds.
With respect to the demised premises, an eviction consists in taking from a tenant some part of the premises of which he was in possession, not in refusing to put him in possession of something which by the agree ment with his landlord he should have en joyed; Etheridge v. Osborn, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 529. And in order to effect a suspension of rent there must be something equivalent to an expulsion from the premises, and not a mere trespass, or disturbance in the enjoy ment of them ; Allen v. Pell, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 505 ; City of New York v. Price, 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 542 ; T. Jones 148 ; Nelson v. Allen, 1 Yerg. (Tenn.) 379; Bartlett v. FarringtOn, 120 Mass. 284. The entry of a landlord up on demised premises for the purpose of re building does not operate as an eviction, where it was with the tenant's assent and not to his entire seclusion ; Heller v. Ins. Co., 151 Pa. 101, 25 Atl. 83.
It is not necessary, however, in order to produce the eviction of a tenant, that there should be an actual physical expulsion ; for a landlord may do many acts tending to di minish the enjoyment of the premises, short of an expulsion, which will amount to an eviction in law : as if he intentionally dis turb the tenant's enjoyment to such an ex tent as to injure his business or destroy the comfort of himself and family, or render the premises unfit for the purposes for which they were leased, it will amount to an evic tion.; Dyett v. Pendleton, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 727; Edmison v. Lowry, 3 S. D. 77, 52 N. W.
583, 17 L. R. A. 275, 44 Am. St. Rep. 774 Duff v. Hart, 16 N. Y. Supp. 163 ; O'Neill v
Manget, 44 Mo. App. 279 ; Hoeveler v. Flem ing, 91 Pa. 322; Royce v. Guggenheim, 10( Mass. 201, 8 Am. Rep. 322 ; Alger v. 49 Vt. 109, 24 Am. Rep. 117; Wade v. 127 Wis. 544, 107 N. W. 4, 5 L. B. A. (N. S.) 855, 7 Ann. Cas. 591.
Constructive eviction may arise from any wrongful act of the lessor which deprives the tenant of the full enjoyment of the leas ed premises : as, by forbidding an under tenant to pay rent to the tenant ; Leadbeater v. Roth, 25 Ill. 587 ; building a fence in front of the premises to cut off the tenant's access thereto ; see Boston & W. R. Co. v. Ripley, 13 Allen (Mass.) 421; erecting a permanent structure which renders unfit for use two rooms ; Royce v. Guggenheim, 106 Mass. 201, 8 Am. Rep. 322; refusal to do an act indis pensably necessary to enable the tenant to carry on the business for which the prem ises were leased : as, when premises were let for a grog-shop, the landlord refused to sign the necessary documents required by statute to enable the tenant to obtain a li cense; Grabenhorst v. Nicodemus, 42 Md. 236 ; contra, Kellogg v. Lowe, 38 Wash. 293, 80 Pac. 458, 70 L. R. A. 510 ; also where les sor tears down an adjoining building, mak ing it evident that lessee's building would fall ; Snow v. Pulitzer, 142 N. Y. 263, 36 N. D. 1059. And when a landlord, who owned another building adjoining that occupied by a tenant, the two being constructed together, tore the former down, rendering the latter unsafe for occupancy, and then procured its condemnation and destruction by the city authorities, these acts constituted an evic tion; Silber v. Larkin, 94 Wis. 9, 68 N. W. 406. So- also failure to furnish elevator service to an office building; McCall v. Ins. Co., 201 Mass. 223, 87 N. E. 582, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 38; Lawrence v. Marble Co., 1 Misc. 105, 20 N. Y. Supp. 698 ; Ess-Eff Realty Co. v. Buttenheim, 125 N. Y. Supp. 401; and such failure together with a failure to heat the premises ; Minneapolis Co-Operative Co. v. Williamson, 51 Minn. 53, 52 N. W. 986, 38 Am. St. Rep. 473; leasing part of a building to an automobile company whose work caus ed vibrations, to the disturbance of an artist ; Wade v. Herndl, 127 Wis. 544, 107 N. W. 4, 5 L. R. A. S.) 855, 7 Ann. Cas. 591; rent ing a floor to lewd and disorderly persons ; Lay v. Bennett, 4 Colo. App. 252, 35 Pac. 748; renting a lower floor for a laundry, as against a florist on an upper floor ; Duff v. Hart, 16 N. Y. Supp. 163; or for a noisy and disorderly saloon; Halligan v. Wade, 21 111. 470, 74 Am. Dec. 108 ; permitting rats and offensive odors in a part of a building ; Bar nard Realty Co. v. Bonwit, 155 App. Div 182, 139 N. Y. Supp. 1050.