ÿWPC’) …#†VUNÜ %* 0D0 0`tbÔU>Ü4 . 0ˆ= 0DÅ 0J 0TS 0^§ 0h 0rm 0|ß 0†[ 0á 1uq U ,æ 0d BvU,“ D3¿U >òƒ0 0@³U 6óB))DCR AM•U*âa :mb§ ­ˆ5´R'v~< vÓº! AO'ÆÜ' 0`¢( 0D) D/F) Bu)˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0ÙP 5 ?;·^A·A (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý- ù-<èÀ( 9 &Courier Regularc`… Ø'çPERÎ3|xü(8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco%%%%'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman yÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òJanuaryÏ22,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€.ÔòòIn€Re€Pioneer€Inv.€Serv.€Co.óó€946€F.2d€445€(6th€Cir.Ï1991),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€504€U.S.€946€(1992).ò ò€ó óÌ XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔSubsequently,€the€Bank€entered€into€an€agreement€toÏrelease€the€liens€on€the€leased€property,€and€notified€thisÏCourt€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€14€that€"all€differencesÏwith€its€borrowers€.€.€.€with€respect€to€any€interest€which€itÏmay€have€had€in€the€property€which€is€the€subject€matter€ofÏthis€litigation,"€had€been€resolved.€€Consequently,€the€BankÏis€no€longer€before€the€Court.€€Ì uÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.Ô"[T]he€money„lending€function€occurred€as€follows:€€TheÏlandowner€would€lease€the€property€to€the€lender,€fixing€aÏterm€of€sufficient€duration€to€allow€the€lender€to€recover,Ïfrom€the€productivity€of€the€land,€both€the€principal€andÏinterest€of€the€loan."€€2€Richard€R.€Powell,€òòReal€PropertyóóÏðð16.02[1][a],€n.€1€(1994);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€1€Milton€R.€Friedman,ÏòòFriedman€on€Leasesóó€ðð1.1,€n.10€(1990).Ì £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔWhereas€the€action€for€unlawful€detainer€is€a€"purelyÏpossessive€action"€where€there€is€no€issue€of€legal€title,€ÏòòMetropolitan€Life€Ins.€Co.€v.€Mooreóó,€72€S.W.2d€l050,€l05lÏ(Tenn.€l934),€and€action€for€ejectment€"is€purely€a€legalÏaction€to€be€brought€in€circuit€or€chancery€court€with€theÏonly€question€being€one€of€legal€title€and€the€right€toÏpossession€in€connection€with€the€title."€€òòNewport€Hous.€Auth.Ïv.€Ballardóó,€839€S.W.2d€86,€89€(Tenn.€1992).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔDiscussed€òòinfraóó€at€[slip€op.€at€18].Ô€+ÔÌ ªÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔòòButóó€òòseeóó€òòCrawford€v.€Buckneróó,€839€S.W.2d€754€(Tenn.€1992)Ï(extending€by€judicial€decision€the€applicability€of€the€Act'sÏprohibition€of€exculpatory€clauses€in€leases,€to€all€countiesÏin€the€state).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.Ô2€Powell€on€Real€Property€at€ðð€17.02[1][a][i].Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòÔ€.ÔSeeóó€òòBroadwell€v.€Holmesóó,€871€S.W.2d€471,€472„73€(Tenn.Ï1994).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(83‚ª$¢¢Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€))X„d&ÓÑ#€))Xd#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÖ€,ÖÑ , ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€™9XXdÈdÈ7ÑÔ€.ÔÑ  Ñà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJanuary€22,€1996Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFORÏPUBLICATIONóóÌÌÙ€€ÙßL€130;+'h|&£` à. `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURTÏOF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLE€ÌÌÌTHE€CAIN€PARTNERSHIP,€LTD.,à à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Knox€LawÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.ÏHarold€Wimberly,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌÒ € ÒÒ h Òà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€No.Ï03S0l„9404„CV„00019ÌPIONEER€INVESTMENT€SERVICESà à(ÌCOMPANY,à àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌFIRST€NATIONAL€BANK€OF€à àà à(ÌLOUISVILLE,à àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àIntervenor.à àà àà à(ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòForÏDefendant„Appelleeóó:ÌÌDean€B.€Farmerà àà àà àà àà àG.ÏWendell€Thomas,€Jr.ÌHodges,€Doughty€&€Carsonà àà àà àKennerly,€Montgomery€&ÌKnoxvilleà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Finley,€P.C.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxvilleÌLarry€E.€ParrishÌLarry€E.€Parrish,€P.C.ÌMemphisÌÌÌòòFor€Intervenoróó:ÌÌRichard€B.€GossettÌHeiskell,€Donelson,€Bearman,€Adams,Ì€€€Williams€&€KirschÌChattanoogaÌÌR.€Thomas€StinnettÌStone€&€Hinds,€P.C.ÌKnoxvilleÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€REVERSED;ÌCASE€REMANDED€TO€TRIAL€COURTÌWITH€INSTRUCTIONS.à àà àà àà àà à€REID,€J.ÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓ` °‚X.h—XÓÓÓà àThis€case€presents€for€review€the€decision€of€theÏtrial€court€granting€summary€judgment€to€the€defendant/€lesseeÏin€an€unlawful€detainer€action€to€recover€possession€ofÏcertain€commercial€property€leased€to€the€defendant€by€theÏplaintiff.€€The€award€of€summary€judgment€is€reversed,€and€theÏcase€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌÌà àThe€facts€and€circumstances€which€form€the€contextÏfor€the€questions€of€law€presented€are€not€disputed.€€In€1974,Ïthe€Cain€Partnership€LTD€(Cain),€a€limited€partnership,€Ïleased€a€tract€of€commercial€real€property€located€in€KnoxÏCounty€for€a€term€of€20€years€and€granted€the€lessee€the€rightÏto€extend€the€lease€for€three€terms€of€20€years€each€and€anÏadditional€term€of€15€years.€€In€1987,€the€lease€was€assignedÏto€a€subsidiary€of€the€defendant,€Pioneer€Investment€ServicesÏCo.€(Pioneer),€and€later€transferred€to€Pioneer.€€ÌÌà àThe€provisions€of€the€lease€relevant€to€the€issuesÏare:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€In€consideration€of€the€leaseÏaforesaid€the€Lessee€contracts€and€agreesÏto€pay€for€the€aforesaid€premises€anÏannual€rental€of€$18,000.00,€payable€atÏthe€rate€of€$1,500.00€per€month€inÏadvance,€the€first€said€monthly€paymentÏto€be€due€on€the€1st€day€of€January,Ï1975.€€The€rental€shall€be€paid€at€theÏoffice€of€the€general€partner€of€LessorÏin€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€promptly€whenÏdue€and€without€demand€either€upon€theÏpremises€or€elsewhere.ÌÌà8 à€€€€€As€further€consideration€for€saidÏlease,€and€in€addition€to€the€monthlyÏpayment€provided€for€herein,€the€LesseeÍshall€pay€all€real€property€taxesÏassessed€against€said€property€by€taxingÏauthorities€during€the€term€of€this€leaseÏand€any€renewal€thereof.€€Said€taxesÏshall€be€paid€promptly€when€due€duringÏthe€entire€term.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€lease€contains€no€language€regarding€defaults€in€paymentÏor€performance,€forfeiture,€or€remedies€for€breach€of€theÏterms€of€the€lease,€except€for€a€provision€allowing€theÏrecovery€of€attorneys'€fees€in€the€event€Cain€should€beÏrequired€to€take€legal€action€to€enforce€the€terms€of€theÏlease.€€ÌÌà àIn€1984,€in€order€to€facilitate€an€arrangementÏbetween€Pioneer€and€First€National€Bank€of€Louisville€(theÏBank)€for€a€development€loan€from€the€Bank€to€Pioneer€to€beÏsecured€by€a€deed€of€trust€on€the€lessee's€leasehold€interestÏin€the€property,€Cain€executed€a€"Landlord'S€EstoppelÏCertificate"€for€the€benefit€of€the€Bank€and€Pioneer,€wherebyÏCain€agreed€that€it€would€give€notice€to€the€Bank€of€anyÏdefault€by€Pioneer€in€the€performance€of€the€lease€and€wouldÏgive€the€Bank€30€days€from€the€date€of€its€receipt€of€theÏnotice€within€which€to€cure€the€default.€€In€return,€the€BankÍagreed€to€give€Cain€notice€of€any€default€in€Pioneer'sÏobligation€to€the€Bank.€€ÌÌà àThe€lease€which€is€the€subject€of€this€litigationÏhas€been€the€subject€of€extensive€legal€proceedings,€includingÏa€case€decided€by€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€ThoughÏnot€controlling€the€determination€of€the€issues€in€this€case,Ïthose€proceedings€provide€relevant€circumstances€and€put€theÏissues€in€focus.€€ÌÌà àOn€April12,€1989,€Pioneer€filed€a€voluntaryÏpetition€in€bankruptcy€and€became€a€debtor„in„possession.€€OnÏMay25,€1989,€Cain€filed€a€motion€to€lift€the€automatic€stayÏso€that€Cain€could€repossess€the€leased€property,€on€theÏground€that€the€lease€had€"automatically"€terminated€becauseÏthe€lessee€had€failed€to€pay€the€property€taxes€when€due.€€TheÏbankruptcy€court€refused€to€lift€the€stay,€holding€that€in€theÏabsence€of€a€specific€forfeiture€provision,€a€non„residentialÏlease€does€not€terminate€automatically€upon€default€in€paymentÍor€performance€by€the€lessee.€€On€appeal,€the€district€judgeÏaffirmed€the€holding€by€the€bankruptcy€judge€and,€in€addition,Ïfound€that€because€the€lease€contained€no€forfeiture€orÏtermination€provision,€no€default€by€the€defendant€wouldÏconstitute€grounds€for€termination€of€the€lease.€€The€SixthÏCircuit€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€decision€of€the€districtÏcourt,€but€limited€its€approval€to€the€first€ground.€€ThatÏcourt's€interpretation€of€Tennessee€law€on€the€subject€wasÏstated€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[T]he€bankruptcy€court€and€the€districtÏcourt€determined€that€Tennessee€lawÏrequires€affirmative€conduct€by€a€lessorÏin€order€to€terminate€a€nonresidentialÏlease€which€lacks€a€termination€orÏforfeiture€clause€on€the€ground€ofÏbreach.€€Accordingly,€the€courts€belowÏconcluded€that€the€Colonial€Lease,€whichÏlacks€a€termination€or€forfeiture€clause,Ïwas€not€terminated€prior€to€the€filing€ofÏPioneer's€bankruptcy€petition€because€theÏPartnership€took€no€action€to€terminateÏthe€lease.€€We€think€that€the€DistrictÏCourt€properly€interpreted€and€appliedÏTennessee€law€in€reaching€thisÏconclusion.ÌÌÌÌòòIn€Re€Pioneer€Inv.€Serv.€Co.óó,€946€F.2d€at€450.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àOn€November€12,€1991,€subsequent€to€the€terminationÏof€the€proceedings€in€federal€court,€this€suit€was€commenced.€ÏThe€complaint€alleges€unlawful€detainer€(Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„18„104€(1980))€and€seeks€possession€of€the€leased€premises,Ïincidental€damages,€and€attorney's€fees.€€The€plaintiffÏcontends€that€the€lease€automatically€terminated€upon€theÏdefendant's€failure€to€pay€the€taxes€when€due,€and,€in€theÏalternative,€that€the€defendant€persisted€in€its€failure€toÏcomply€with€the€provisions€of€the€lease€for€the€payment€ofÏtaxes€after€the€receipt€of€adequate€notice€and€an€opportunityÏto€cure€the€default.€€ÌÌà àThe€Bank,€which€was€allowed€to€intervene,€filed€aÏmotion€to€dismiss€the€complaint,€contending€that€pursuant€toÏthe€estoppel€certificate,€Cain€was€obligated€to€give€the€BankÏnotice€of€and€an€opportunity€to€cure€any€default€prior€to€theÏinitiation€of€any€action€to€have€the€lease€terminated.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€accepted€Pioneer's€argument€that€theÏlease€could€not€be€judicially€terminated€because€it€containsÏno€provision€for€termination,€declared€the€issue€raised€by€theÍBank€moot,€and€dismissed€the€complaint.€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€the€Bank€had€not€beenÏgiven€an€opportunity€to€cure€the€default€before€the€suit€wasÏfiled,€as€required€by€the€estoppel€certificate,€and€affirmedÏthe€trial€court's€dismissal€of€the€suit.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àFor€the€purposes€of€this€appeal,€the€record€supportsÏthe€trial€court's€finding€that€the€lessee€failed€to€pay€theÏtaxes€assessed€against€the€property,€and€that€failure€was€aÏbreach€of€a€material€provision€of€the€lease.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌÌà àThe€only€issue€before€the€Court€is€the€reliefÏavailable€to€the€lessor.€€Consequently,€the€issue€presented€isÏa€question€of€law.€€Questions€of€law€are€reviewed€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€withÍno€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€l3(d);ÏòòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€Huddlestonóó,€854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.Ï1993).ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌÌà àThe€principles€defining€the€rights€and€obligationsÏof€the€parties€to€a€lease€of€real€property€developed€as€partÏof€the€common€law€and€arise€from€both€property€and€contractÏlaw.€€A€short€review€regarding€the€evolvement€of€theseÏprinciples€is€helpful€in€determining€the€rights€andÏobligations€of€the€parties€in€this€case.ÌÌà@ àòòThe€Nature€of€a€LeaseóóÌÌà àA€lease€for€a€definite€term€originally€served€as€aÏmoneylending€device,€used€to€avoid€the€ecclesiastical€ban€onÏusury× ƒ6 ××  ×,€and€consequently,€a€lease€was€deemed€to€be€a€personalÍand€contractual€interest.€€€2€Richard€R.€Powell,€òòReal€PropertyóóÏðð16.02[1][a]€(1994).€€Gradually,€the€lease€became€usedÏinstead,€to€allow€landowners€to€contract€for€the€farming€ofÏtheir€lands€by€the€landless;€again€"the€tenant€was€byÏdefinition€'one€who€had€no€right€in€the€land,€but€merely€theÏbenefit€of€a€contract.'"€€òòIdóó€(quoting€2€F.€Pollock€&€F.ÏMaitland,€òòHistory€of€English€Lawóó€36€(1895)).€€Between€1200€andÏ1500,€the€lessee€became€recognized€as€the€owner€of€an€interestÏin€land,€and€the€lease€as€a€"conveyance"€of€an€estate€in€land.€ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€reasons€why€this€change€was€made€wereÏpartly€legal€and€partly€economic.€€WeÏhave€seen€that€the€machinery€of€a€term€ofÏyears€had€ceased€for€technical€legalÏreasons€to€be€employed€in€the€creation€ofÏa€mortgage.€€Therefore€the€beneficialÏlease€for€this€purpose€went€out€of€use.€ÏWe€have€seen€that€the€decay€of€theÏlabour„service€system€was€the€cause€of€aÏgreat€extension€in€the€practice€ofÏletting€the€land€to€lessees€for€years€forÏlonger€or€shorter€terms.€€It€is€quiteÏclear€that€such€lessees,€if€ejected,Ïwould€not€have€been€compensatedÏadequately€if€they€had€only€been€givenÏdamages.€€We€have€seen,€too,€that€theÏgovernment€desired€to€stop€theÏdepopulation€of€the€country€caused€by€theÏconversion€of€arable€land€into€pastureÍfor€sheep.€€It€is€obvious€that€a€ruleÏthat€the€ejected€lessee€could€not€recoverÏthe€land€would€have€facilitated€theÏoperations€of€the€landlords,€who€wereÏpursuing€this€undesirable€policy.ÌÌÌÌÓÓ3€William€Holdsworth€òòA€History€of€English€Lawóó,€216„17€(5th€ed.Ïreprinted€1991).€€ÌÌà àMore€recently,€the€utility€of€a€lease€has€been€itsÏprovision€of€shelter,€and€the€maintenance€of€habitableÏconditions€for€a€growing€population:€€"The€urbanization€of€theÏpopulation€resulting€from€the€growth€of€cities€has€shifted€theÏfocus€of€the€lease€transaction€from€land€to€shelter,€and€hasÏproduced€an€inequality€of€bargaining€power€between€landlordÏand€tenant,€factors€that€have€been€cited€prominently€in€recentÏjudicial€decisions€expanding€the€rights€of€residentialÏtenants."€€2€Richard€R.€Powell,€òòPowell€on€Real€Propertyóó€at€Ïðð16.02[1][a].€€The€historical€background€and€practicalÏservices€that€a€lease€provides€have€culminated€into€theÏpresent€status€of€a€lease€which€has€been€summarized€asÏfollows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àA€lease€of€land€creates€rights€andÏduties€based€on€two€independent€grounds.€ÏFirst,€the€lease€represents€a€conveyanceÏof€an€estate€in€real€property€and€aÏrelationship€arises€between€the€lessorÏand€lessee€based€on€ownership€of€theÏdemised€premises.€€The€parties€are€saidÏto€be€in€privity€of€estate€as€long€as€theÏlandlord„tenant€relationship€exists.€ÏSecond,€the€lease€agreement€creates€aÏcontractual€relationship€between€theÏlessor€and€lessee.€€The€parties€are€saidÏto€be€in€privity€of€contract€with€theÏterms€of€the€lease€defining€their€rightsÏand€obligations.€€Typically,€the€lessee'sÏobligation€to€pay€rent€and€taxes€arisesÏby€virtue€of€both€privity€of€estate€andÏprivity€of€contract.€€òòSeeóó€Schoshinski,ÏòòAmerican€Law€of€Landlord€and€Tenantóó€ðð8.1,Ïat€532€(1980);€òòConsumer's€Ice€Co.€v.ÏBixleróó,€84€Md.€437€35€A.€1086€(1896).ÌÌÌÌòòItalian€Fisherman€v.€Middlemasóó,€545€A.2d€1,€4€(Md.€1988).ÌÌà àÌÌà@ àòòLease€as€ConveyanceóóÌÓÓÌÌà àUnder€the€theory€that€the€lease€conveys€the€propertyÏfor€a€term€of€years,€the€tenant€is€the€owner€of€the€leasedÏproperty€for€the€term€and,€therefore,€the€landlord€need€notÏconcern€himself€with€the€property,€but€only€with€his€damagesÏunder€the€lease;€thus,€the€nonpayment€of€rent€or€taxes€wouldÍresult,€not€in€an€effort€to€regain€possession€of€the€propertyÏby€forfeiture,€but€in€a€suit€for€payment€of€the€rent,Ïinterests€and€costs.€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àFrom€the€premise€that€a€lease€is€aÏconveyance€there€were€some€consequences.€ÏWhen€a€landlord€conveyed€„€executed€andÏdelivered€a€lease€to€a€tenant€„€he€hadÏdone€all€he€had€to.€€From€then€on€theÏtenant€was€on€his€own.€€Landlord€need€notÏrepair.€€Nor€need€he€render€any€servicesÏto€tenant.€€If€the€house€burned€down€itÏdid€not€matter.€€The€lease€continued,€asÏwell€as€tenant's€liability€for€rent€andÏother€obligations.ÌÌà8 àà àThere€was€also€an€importantÏconsequence€to€the€landlord.€€ByÏconveying€to€the€tenant€for€a€specifiedÏterm,€landlord€parted€with€all€possessoryÏrights€until€the€time€specified€in€theÏlease€for€its€expiration.€€NeitherÏnonpayment€of€rent€nor€breach€of€covenantÏby€tenant€divested€the€estate€so€createdÏor€revested€landlord€with€a€right€toÏpossession.€€His€remedy€was€to€sue€forÏrent€or€for€breach€of€covenant,€but€withÏno€right€to€dispossess.€€This€has€beenÏchanged€generally€in€this€country€byÏstatutes€that€give€a€landlord€possessoryÏremedies€for€nonpayment€of€rent,€and€byÏstatutes€and€lease€provisions€that€extendÏpossessory€remedies€to€breach€of€covenantÏand€to€other€circumstances€as€well.ÌÌÌÌ1€Milton€R.€Friedman,€òòFriedman€on€Leasesóó,€ðð1.1€(1990).ÌÌÓÓÌà@ àòòDetainer€and€Re„entry€LawóóÌÌà àStill,€there€were€actions€under€which€a€landlordÏcould€recover€possession€at€common€law;€however,€they€wereÏapparently€unsatisfactory:ÌÌÓÓà8 àCourts€of€equity€treat€the€landlord'sÏright€to€forfeiture€for€breach€of€suchÏconditions€as€being,€in€effect,€a€mereÏsecurity€for€the€payment€of€theÏobligation.€€Thus,€equitable€relief€isÏordinarily€granted€upon€the€payment€ofÏthe€principal€sum€with€interest€and€costsÏthat€have€accrued,€these€payments€beingÏregarded€as€compensation€for€nonpaymentÏwhen€the€obligation€was€due€...€1ÏTiffany,€òòReal€Propertyóó€ðð€215€(3d.€ed.Ï1939).ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòDreisonstok€v.€Dworman€Bldg.€Corp.óó,€284€A.2d€400,€404€(Md.€Ct.ÏApp.€1971).€€Consequently,€statutory€enactments€have€becomeÏsignificant€in€this€area€of€the€law:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€Although€actions€to€recoverÏpossession€of€real€property€existed€atÏcommon€law€the€particular€action€ofÏunlawful€detainer€resulted€from€theÍevolution€of€the€law€and€did€not€appearÏin€this€State€until€passage€of€the€firstÏunlawful€detainer€statute€in€1821.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòNewport€Hous.€Auth.€v.€Ballardóó,€839€S.W.2d€86,€88€(Tenn.Ï1992).ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€statute€creates€a€right€to€bring€aÏcause€of€action€for€a€writ€of€possession€when€a€lessee€remainsÏon€the€leased€property€after€the€lease€has€been€terminated.€ÏThe€statute€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àUnlawful€detainer€is€where€the€defendantÏenters€by€contract,€either€as€tenant€orÏas€assignee€of€a€tenant,€or€as€personalÏrepresentative€of€a€tenant,€or€asÏsubtenant,€or€by€collusion€with€a€tenant,Ïand,€in€either€case,€willfully€andÏwithout€force,€holds€over€the€possessionÏfrom€the€landlord,€or€the€assignee€of€theÏremainder€or€reversion.ÌÌÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„18„104€(1980).€€The€intent€of€the€1821Ïlegislative€act,€in€creating€the€action€of€unlawful€detainer,Ïwas€to€provide€an€action€to€determine€the€right€of€possessionÏof€real€property.€€òòNewport€Hous.€Auth.€v.€Ballardóó,€839€S.W.2dÍat€89.× ƒ7 ××  ×ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€statute€was€intended€to€preventÏbloodshed,€violence,€and€breaches€of€theÏpeace,€too€likely€to€arise€from€wrongfulÏintrusion€into€the€possession€of€another,Ïand€to€give€a€right€to€restitution€underÏthe€statute;€it€is€not€so€absurd€as€toÏrequire€actual€bloodshed€and€violence,Ïand€frequent€breaches€of€the€peace,€inÏthe€acquisition€or€retention€of€theÏpossession.ÌÌòòÌÌChildress€v.€Blackóó,€17€Tenn.€317,€320€(1836).ÌÌÓÓÌÓÓà8 àThe€action€in€unlawful€detainer€was€forÏpossession€of€the€property€(Code,€sec.Ï9257),€and€the€judgment€for€rent€andÏdamages€are€incidental€to€the€judgmentÏfor€possession.€€òòBloch€v.€Buschóó,€160ÏTenn.€21,€22€S.W.2d€242;€Code,€secs.€9244Ïand€9247.€€Compare€36€C.J.S.,€ForcibleÏEntry€and€Detainer,€ðð3.ÌÌà8 àà à"The€action€is€strictly€possessoryÏin€its€nature,€so€that€ordinarily€theÍimmediate€right€to€possession€is€all€thatÏis€involved€or€can€be€determined."ÌÌòòÌÌÓÓNashville€Hous.€Auth.€v.€Kinnardóó,€186€Tenn.€33,€207€S.W.2dÏ1019,€1021€(1948).ÌÌà@ àòòForfeitureóóÌÌà àHowever,€the€detainer€statute€by€itself€does€notÏaddress€the€problem€of€the€tenant€who€breaches€the€provisionsÏof€the€lease€which€has€not€by€its€terms€expired.€€Thus,€atÏcommon€law,€the€landlord€had€to€specifically€provide€forÏforfeiture€of€the€lease€upon€a€breach€of€the€terms€in€theÏlease€itself.à àFor€instance,€in€òòBarnett€v.€Dooleyóó,€186€Tenn.Ï611,€212€S.W.2d€598,€600€(1948),€the€Court€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€law€is€that€"a€tenant's€failureÏto€pay€rent€does€not€terminate€or€forfeitÏhis€tenancy,€in€the€absence€of€aÏprovision€in€the€lease€for€suchÏforfeiture;€and€where€there€is€such€aÏprovision,€the€landlord€must€make€formalÏdemand€of€the€rent€.€.€.€unless€suchÏdemand€is€waived€by€the€lease€or€by€actÏof€the€parties."€€òòSmith€v.€Holtóó,€193ÏS.W.2d€100,€102€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1946).ÌÌÌÌÓÓThis€harsh€result€has€been€changed€in€many€instances€byÏstatute:ÌÌÓÓà8 àAt€common€law,€if€the€lease€simplyÏimposed€a€promissory€obligation€on€theÏtenant€and€nothing€more,€a€breach€of€theÏobligation€gave€the€landlord€an€actionÏfor€breach€of€contract,€but€no€power€toÏterminate€the€lease.€€In€order€to€haveÏthe€power€to€terminate€at€common€law,€theÏlandlord€had€to€couple€the€covenant€withÏan€express€provision€for€forfeiture€ofÏthe€lease€upon€breach€of€the€covenant.€ÏThe€common€law€approach€has€now€beenÏwidely€changed€by€statutes€which€give€theÏlandlord,€in€the€absence€of€a€leaseÏforfeiture€clause,€the€power€to€terminateÏthe€lease€for€at€least€the€most€seriousÏkinds€of€tenant€defaults,€such€as€failureÏto€pay€rent.ÌÌÌÌÓÓ2€Richard€R.€Powell,€òòPowell€on€Real€Propertyóó€atÏðð17.02[1][a][i].ÌÌà àIt€is€generally€recognized€that€a€strict€adherenceÏto€viewing€the€lease€as€a€conveyance€in€property€should€yieldÏto€contract€law€in€the€situation€of€the€tenant€who€fails€toÏpay€rent.ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€òòUniform€Residential€Landlord€andÏTenant€Actóó€explicitly€recognizes€theÏlandlord's€remedy€of€termination€of€theÏlease€in€cases€of€"material€noncomplianceÏby€the€tenant€with€the€rental€agreement."€ÏAccordingly,€under€the€òòUniform€Actóó,€theÏlandlord's€remedy€of€termination,€subjectÏto€proper€notice€to€the€tenant,€isÏrecognized€regardless€of€whether€theÏlandlord€has€specifically€reserved€theÏright€to€terminate€in€the€lease.€€TheÏòòRestatement€(Second)€of€Propertyóó× ƒ8 ××  ×€takesÏsubstantially€the€same€position,€allowingÏthe€landlord€to€terminate€the€lease€forÏthe€tenant's€failure€to€perform€a€promiseÏwithin€a€reasonable€time€after€beingÏrequested€by€the€landlord€to€do€so€whereÏas€a€result€of€the€failure€"the€landlordÏis€deprived€of€a€significant€inducementÏto€the€making€of€the€lease."€€Upon€theÏtenant's€failure€to€leave€voluntarilyÏafter€failure€to€correct€the€breach,€theÏlandlord€may€pursue€whatever€remedies€areÏprovided€under€local€law€to€recoverÏproperty€from€a€holdover€tenant.ÌÌòòÌÌÓÓId.óó€at€ðð€17.02[1][a][ii].€€òòCf.óó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð66„28„505Ï(1993)€(providing€for€termination€of€a€lease€governed€by€theÏTennessee€Uniform€Residential€Landlord€and€Tenant€Act€„€"[i]fÏrent€is€unpaid€when€due€and€the€tenant€fails€to€pay,€writtenÏnotice€by€the€landlord€of€nonpayment€is€required"€beforeÍtermination€of€a€residential€lease.)€€However,€the€TennesseeÏstatute€is€limited€to€residential€leases€and€does€not€by€itsÏterms€control€the€rights€and€liabilities€of€the€parties€to€aÏlease€of€non„residential€property.× ƒ9 ××  ×€ÌÌà@ àò òIVó óÌÌà àPrior€decisions€of€this€Court€have€followed€theÏcommon€law€concept€that€a€lease€is€a€conveyance€of€an€interestÏin€real€property€and€the€rights€of€the€parties€are€determinedÏby€property€law.€€In€òòPlanters€Ins.€Co.€v.€Diggóó,€67€Tenn.€563Ï(1876),€which€is€relied€upon€by€both€parties,€the€leaseÏprovided€that€should€the€lessee€fail€during€the€term€to€payÏthe€taxes€and€other€specified€charges,€then€the€lease€was€toÏterminate€and€the€lessor€would€have€the€immediate€right€of€re„entry.€€The€Court€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThese€authorities€conclusively€settleÏthat€the€forfeiture€is€to€be€enforced€atÍthe€option€of€the€lessor,€and€by€anÏaffirmative€act€on€his€part,€that€is€byÏre„entry€for€such€purpose,€based€onÏfailure€to€perform€or€breach€of€theÏconditions,€and€do€not€take€effect€untilÏthis€is€done.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€568.€€As€previously€noted,€in€òòBarnett€v.€Dooleyóó,€212ÏS.W.2d€598,€600€(Tenn.€1948),€and€also€in€òòSmith€v.€Holtóó,€l93ÏS.W.2d€l00€(Tenn.€App.€l946),€the€Court€recognized€the€commonÏlaw€rule€that€the€failure€to€pay€rent€does€not€terminate€theÏtenancy€in€the€absence€of€a€forfeiture€provision€in€the€lease;Ïand€that€where€there€is€a€forfeiture€provision,€the€landlordÏmust€make€a€formal€demand€for€the€rent€unless€such€demand€isÏwaived€by€the€parties.ÌÌà àHistorically,€the€chief€distinction€between€aÏcondition€and€a€covenant€in€an€instrument€of€conveyanceÏpertains€to€the€remedy€available€to€the€grantor;€breach€of€aÏcondition€subjects€the€grantee's€estate€to€forfeiture,€breachÏof€a€covenant€subjects€the€grantor€to€an€action€for€damagesÏonly.€€òòSeeóó€òòSloan€v.€Cantrellóó,€45€Tenn.€571,€577€(1868).ÌÌà àThis€common€law€concept,€which€is€based€on€theÍtechnical€characteristics€of€conditions,€covenants,€andÏlimitations× ƒ: ××  ×€has€been€replaced€in€most€jurisdictions€byÏstatutes€which€provide€the€landlord€a€summary€procedureÏwhereby€the€tenant€may€be€evicted€after€a€default€in€theÏpayment€of€rent,€whether€or€not€the€lease€has€a€clauseÏterminating€the€lease€on€failure€to€pay€rent.€€Restatement€ofÏProperty€(Second)€ðð€12.1€(1977);€2€Powell€on€Real€Property€atÏðð€17.02[1][a][ii].€€However,€Tennessee€has€no€such€statuteÏapplicable€to€non„residential€leases.ÌÌà àThe€positions€of€the€parties€in€this€caseÏdemonstrate€the€failure€of€these€traditional€common€law€rulesÏof€property€law€to€accommodate€present€business€conditions.€ÏCain's€position€is€that€Pioneer€"irrevocably€breached"€theÏlease€by€failing€to€pay€the€taxes,€thereby€allowing€Cain€toÏterminate€the€lease€at€its€will.€€Cain€contends€that€theÏcommencement€of€the€unlawful€detainer€suit€constituted€itsÏelection€to€terminate€the€lease.€€Pioneer,€on€the€other€hand,Ïcontends€that€a€leasehold€estate€in€non„residential€propertyÏ"cannot€be€terminated"€in€the€absence€of€a€clearly€statedÍcondition€subsequent,€and€proof€of€breach,€notice€and€re„entry.€€Pioneer€contends€that€Cain's€only€remedy€for€Pioneer'sÏfailure€to€pay€the€taxes€(or€any€other€breach€or€default)€wasÏan€action,€or€perhaps€successive€actions,€against€Pioneer€forÏdamages.€€The€history€of€this€case€is€ample€evidence€of€theÏinadequacy€of€these€common€law€rules€of€property.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€before€the€Court,€the€lessee'sÏobligation€to€pay€the€taxes€is€stated€in€the€same€language€andÏin€the€same€context€as€the€obligation€to€pay€the€rent.€€TheÏinstrument€evidences€the€intention€that€these€obligations,Ïwhich€are€"in€consideration€of€the€lease,"€are€of€equalÏsignificance.€€In€analyzing€the€issues€in€this€case,€there€isÏno€basis€on€which€to€distinguish€between€a€covenant€and€aÏcondition.€€The€terms€of€the€lease€are€unambiguous€inÏproviding€that€both€rent€and€taxes€were€to€be€paid€by€theÏlessee.€€It€is€recognized€that,€"[t]he€covenant€of€a€tenant€toÏpay€taxes,€like€a€covenant€to€pay€rent,€involves€the€paymentÏof€a€sum€of€money€which€is€ascertained,€or€readilyÏascertainable,€2€Pomeroy's€Equity€Jurisprudence€ðð€454A.€(5thÏEd.€1941)."€€òòDreisonstok€v.€Dworman€Bldg.€Corp.óó,€284€A.2d€400,Í404€(Md.€Ct.€App.€1971).€€The€consequences€of€the€tenant'sÏfailure€to€pay€taxes€may€be€more€detrimental€to€the€lessorÏthan€the€failure€to€pay€rent.€€ÌÌà àThe€intention€of€the€parties€is€not€given€expressionÏin€the€technical€differences€between€covenants€and€conditions.€ÏThe€parties'€rights€and€liabilities€should€turn€on€anÏinterpretation€of€the€lease,€the€conduct€of€the€parties,€andÏrules€which€are€consistent€with€modern€business€practice.€€TheÏtimely€evolution€of€the€common€law€requires€that€this€resultÏbe€accomplished.× ƒ; ××  ×Ì€Ìà àThe€provisions€of€the€Restatement€of€PropertyÏ(Second),€ðð€l3.l€(1977),€reflect€the€principles€of€mutualityÏand€fairness€which€should€govern€the€determination€andÏenforcement€of€the€legal€rights€at€issue€in€this€case.€ÏConsequently,€the€resolution€of€the€issues€presented€will€beÏaccording€to€that€section,€which€states:ÌÌÓÓà8 àNonperformance€of€Tenant's€Promise„„Remedies€AvailableÌÌà8 à€€€€€Except€to€the€extent€the€parties€toÏa€lease€validly€agree€otherwise,€if€theÏtenant€fails€to€perform€a€valid€promiseÏcontained€in€the€lease€to€do,€or€toÏrefrain€from€doing,€something€on€theÏleased€property€or€elsewhere,€and€as€aÏconsequence€thereof,€the€landlord€isÏdeprived€of€a€significant€inducement€toÏthe€making€of€the€lease,€if€the€tenantÏdoes€not€perform€his€promise€within€aÏreasonable€period€of€time€after€beingÏrequested€to€do€so,€the€landlord€may:ÌÌà8 à€€€€€(1)€terminate€the€lease€and€recoverÏdamages;€orÌÌà8 à€€€€€(2)€continue€the€lease€and€obtainÏappropriate€equitable€and€legal€relief,ÏincludingÌÌà8 à€€€€(a)€recovery€of€damages,€andÌÌà8 à€€€€(b)€recovery€of€the€reasonable€cost€à à€Ïà à€€€of€performing€the€tenant's€à à€€€€€€€€€Ïpromise.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€decision€requires€that€the€case€be€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€further€proceedings.€€The€parties€may€beÏallowed€to€amend€their€pleadings€if€necessary€to€address€allÏof€the€issues€relevant€to€the€resolution€of€their€rights€andÏobligations€under€the€lease.€€ÌÌÌÌÌà àThe€costs€are€assessed€against€the€appellants€andÏappellees€equally.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.ÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌDrowota€and€Birch,€JJ.,€Ì€€€and€Wade,€Sp.€JJ.ÌÌÌO'Brien,€Sp.€J.,€filing€separate€Opinion€Ì€€€Concurring€in€Results.