L. let a building to T. with the provision in the lease that if the premises should be rendered unfit for occupancy by reason of fire or other casualty, L. would rebuild the same at his own expense. Subsequently the city council passed a building code prohibiting the rebuilding of a structure destroyed more than sixty per cent by fire. The building in this case was almost entirely destroyed by fire and L. was refused a permit to rebuild. Previous to the refusal of the commissioner to grant a permit, T. had preferred L. the monthly rent which L. had refused pending the decision of the commissioner. T. let L. understand that at all times he held him liable for performance of the covenant to rebuild. After being refused a permit, L. ousted T. from the premises and built a new building of fireproof construction. T. sued L. on the grounds that he was wrongfully deprived of the premises. Held, that the inability of L. to perform the covenant to rebuild due to a subsequent municipal ordinance gave him the opportunity to consider the lease terminated and to reenter regardless of any claims T. might have. Poledor v. Mayerfield (Ind. App. 1930) 173 N.E. 292.