Occupancy, incident to employment does not create tenancy, as superintendence of the cultivation of land ; Davis v. Williams, 130 Ala. 530, 30 South. 488, 54 L. R. A. 749, 89 Am. St. Rep. 55 ; Zinnel v. Bergdoll, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 522; in charge of a ranch ; Tod hunter v. Armstrong, 121 Cal. xviii, 53 Pac. 446; servant ; Mead v. Pollock, 99 Ill. App. 151; but it must appear that the occupancy is accessory to his services ; Snedaker v. Powell, 32 Kan. 396, 4 Pac, 869; a condition that is variously described in the cases by the terms ancillary, or auxiliary, or inci dental to, and inseparable from, the service or connected with it or required by it ex pressly or impliedly ; King v. Kelstern, 5 M. & S. 136 ; Queen v. Bishopton, 9 Ad. & El. 824 ; Smith v. Leghill, L. R. 10 Q. B. 1022; Bowman v. Bradley, 151 Pa. 351, 24 Atl. 1062, 17 L. R. A. 213 ; School District No. 11 v. Batsche, 106 Mich. 330, 64 N. W. 196, 29 L R. A. 576; Hart v. O'Brien, 15 L. Can. Jur. 42.
The question of the relation of the cupancy to the service or employment was properly left to the jury ; Ofschloger 'v. Sur beck, 22 Misc. 595, 50 N. Y. Supp. 862 ; Hughes v. Chatam, 5 Mann. & G. 54 ; the terms of the contract or the character of the occupation are for the jury, but those be ing fixed, their legal import is for the court to declare upon consideration of the and character of the business ; Bowman v. Bradley, 151 Pa. 351, 24 Atl. 1062, 17 L. R. A. 213; Kerrains v. People, 60 N. Y. 221, 19 Am. Rep. 158.
A priest holding his place at the will of the bishop and occupying church property which included a dwelling house, was held not to be a tenant, his possession being more like that of a servant; Chatard v. O'Donovan, 80 Ind. 20, 41 Am. Rep. 782.
Rights of the Landlord. The relation be gins and the obligations accrue from the time stipulated in the lease, if there be one (see LEASE), or the entry of the tenant into pos session under an agreement express or im plied to pay rent or the actual payment of it ; Kemp v. Derrett, 3 Camp. 510. After the making of a lease the right of possession re mains in the landlord until the contract is consummated by the entry of the lessee, when he acquires the right of possession with all its incidents ; Herrmann v. Curiel, 3 App. Div. 511, 38 N. Y. Supp. 343. The rights of the landlord in the premises are confined to those derived expressly or impliedly from the lease or essential to the protection of his reversion; Sully v. Schmitt, 147 N. Y. 248, 41 N. E. 514, 49 Am. St. Rep. 659 ; he usually reserves the right to go upon the premises peaceably to ascertain whether there is waste or injury, but unless it is so reserved, he has no such right ; State v. Piper, 89 N.
C. 551. He may, however, enter when the tenant has abandoned the land ; Maclary v. Turner, 1 Marv. (Del.) 24, 32 Atl. 325 ; but it is an eviction if the landlord enter for the purpose of rebuilding; Heller v. Ins. Co., 151 Pa. 101, 25 Atl. 83; or repair ; Peter son v. Edmonson, 5 Harring. (Del.) 378; and if the rent is payable in produce he can not enter and take it until it is delivered by the tenant or severed from the farm and set apart for him; Dockham v. Parker, 9 Greenl. (Me.) 137, 23 Am. Dec. 547; Woodruff v. Adams, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 317, 35 Am. Dee. 122; or to remove an obstruction from a way ; Proud v. Hollis, 1 B. & C. 8. He may maintain actions for such injuries as affect his reversion ; Starr v. Jackson, 11 Mass. 519; Ray v. Ayers, 5 Duer (N. Y.) 494; but they must be of a permanent character; Little v. Pollster, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 6.
The landlord's responsibilities in respect to possession, also, are suspended as soon as the tenant commences his occupation ; Cheetham v. Hampson, 4 Term 318; City of New York v. Corlies, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 301; City of St. Louis v. Kaime, 2 Mo. App. 66. But he is liable to a stranger who is injured by rea son of the defective condition of the premises at the time of their demise, or any fault in their construction, or nuisance thereon, though created by the tenant's ordinary use of the premises ; Godley v. Hagerty, 20 Pa. 387, 59 Am. Dec. 731; Whalen v. Gloucester, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 24; or if an injury is caused by the neglect of the landlord to do repairs, which he undertook to do, or if he renews the lease with a nuisance on the premises; King v. Pedley, 1 Ad. & El. 822. He may be liable for not disclosing a concealed danger, not discoverable by the tenant, but known to the landlord or condemned by common ex perience as dangerous ; Cutter v. Hamlen, 147 Mass. 471, 18 N. E. 397, 1 L. R. A. 429. And even when there is no express covenant to repair, where the defect was in a side walk, the owner was under an implied duty to inspect and repair which could be enforced by the municipality ; Trustees of Village of Canandaigua v. Foster, 156 N. Y. 354, 50 N. E. 971, 41 L. R. A. 554, 66 Am. St. Rep. 575. And the landlord is liable for injuries in curred by third persons in parts of the build ing of which he retains the possession and control, as : An elevator ; Burner v. Hig man & Skinner Co., 127 Ia. 580, 103 N. W. 802; or opening in the sidewalk; Jennings v. Van Schaick, 108 N. Y. 530, 15 N. E. 424, 2 Am. St. Rep. 459 ; or outside steps, or a platform for common use of tenants ; Coupe v. Platt, 172 Mass. 458, 52 N. E. 526, 70 Am. St. Rep. 293.