## Facts

- A landlord leased commercial space in Cleveland, Mississippi, for a ten-year term with a conditional renewal option.
- The tenant’s interest was assigned to Mrs. Hardy, who operated an electrical appliance business in the premises.
- The lease contained no express covenant prohibiting the type of alterations later made and no express requirement of landlord consent for those alterations.
- The tenant installed an interior partition that reduced the open store width and created office space; part of the partitioned area was sublet to a jewelry business.
- The tenant also altered the glass storefront and entrance, including removal of some glass components.
- The landlord objected to the changes, claimed they materially altered the structure and harmed its value, and estimated restoration costs at about $1,000.
- The landlord refused to accept rent beginning in January 1952; the tenant tendered rent and paid amounts due into the court registry to avoid default.
- The tenant contended the changes were temporary and readily reversible, did not reduce market value, and may have increased usefulness; evidence indicated the building carried significant insurance relative to restoration cost.
- The chancery court upheld the tenant’s rights under the lease, allowed continued payment of rent, and denied the landlord’s request to cancel the lease and recover damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a commercial tenant’s unprohibited alterations—partitioning interior space and modifying the storefront—constituted actionable waste.
2. Whether the alleged waste, if any, justified forfeiture and cancellation of the lease and the tenant’s rights under the assignment.
3. Whether equity should permit the tenant to preserve the lease by tendering rent into court when the landlord refuses acceptance.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court’s decree for the tenant.
- The court held the alterations did not constitute waste warranting cancellation or forfeiture.
- The landlord was not entitled to damages or equitable cancellation based on the complained-of changes.
- The tenant was entitled to continue under the lease while paying rent, including payment into court when necessary to prevent forfeiture.

## Legal Principles

- Alterations by a tenant are not waste when they are temporary or readily curable and do not substantially and permanently impair the value of the property.
- In the absence of an express lease covenant prohibiting the alterations, courts are less likely to treat commercially motivated changes as waste.
- Forfeiture is disfavored in equity, particularly where rent is tendered and the landlord shows no substantial permanent injury to the property.
- A landlord seeking cancellation for waste must show material, lasting injury rather than reversible changes that may be neutral or beneficial.

## Conclusion

The court refused to cancel a long-term commercial lease where the tenant’s unprohibited alterations were reversible and did not cause substantial permanent diminution in value, and it allowed the tenant to maintain the lease by tendering rent despite the landlord’s refusal to accept it.


Sparkman v. Hardy, 78 So. 2d 584 (Miss. 1955)