With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a tenant’s right of possession and enjoyment of the leased premises is interfered with by the landlord ... as to render the premises, or a part thereof, unsuitable for the purposes intended.” Brugger v. Fonoti, 645 P.2d 647, 648 (Utah 1982). In order for a constructive eviction to occur, a tenant must abandon the premises within a reasonable time following the landlord’s interference. See id. (citing Thirteenth & Washington Sts. Corp. v. Neslen, 123 Utah 70, 254 P.2d 847 (1953)). “[T]he whole point of ‘constructive eviction’ is that the landlord basically drove the tenant out through the landlord’s action or inaction.” Kenyon v. Regan, 826 P.2d 140, 142 (Utah App.1992) (citing Fernandez v. Purdue, 30 Utah 2d 389, 518 P.2d 684 (1974)). Thus, both a vacation of the premises App. 1977) (<HOLDING>); Cavalier Square v. Alcoholic Beverage

A: holding threat by lessor to resort to legal process when made in good faith is not intentional conduct supporting finding of constructive eviction
B: holding mere notice to quit followed by peaceful vacation of the premises is not sufficient to constitute a claim of constructive eviction
C: holding that guest of hotel not entitled to notice of eviction
D: holding notice to quit is evidence that tenant did not leave voluntarily but absent showing of malice action for constructive eviction may not stand where there has been no physical interference with leased premises
B.