There have been revolutionary changes in what constitutes a tenant's duties in America over the past 30 years. Most of the changes came by way of decree from liberal judges, rather than from new law or legislation.
      Perhaps the most consequential example is the willingness of most courts to now hold that landlords make an implied warranty of habitability. (A few courts have even extended to conditions that arise because of a tenant's misuse) Some courts have held that if the implied warranty is breached, the tenant becomes entitled to terminate any lease and move out, withhold rent, or use rent moneys to make the repairs himself. 

Duty to Pay Rent: Most judges believe the tenant has a duty to pay rent - or they may not claim tenant's rights. In 1995 Michigan courts defined a tenant as "one who had paid rent" to occupy real property. In that far-reaching case the courts held that the landlord had damaged a tenant by not providing electricity, even though the tenant had ceased paying rent. But, the court said her children, who had not paid rent, were not entitled to damages because, since they did not pay rent they were therefore not covered under the tenant lock-out law.
      Paying rent is, therefore, the primary criteria that defines the landlord-tenant relationship. See Landlord Tenant Relationships.

Duty to Pay Rent Even Though Repairs Are Not Done: At common law the covenants to an agreement were always independent, so that even a breach by the landlord of most of his duties did not entitle the tenant to stop paying rent. Most modern courts have modified this rule, however, so that a material breach by the landlord of his implied or express obligations at least temporarily relieves the tenant from continuing to pay rent. Now in many states, the tenant has a relatively new right called "Repair and Deduct". Such statutes grant a tenant the legal ability to withhold rent (which usually has to be paid into an escrow account as it comes due), to make repairs himself and deduct the amount from the rent; or to gain a judicial abatement or reduction of rent as a result of decreased capacity to have quiet enjoyment. See Warranty of Habitability.

Duty to Not Abandon Premises to Avoid Rent: The fact that a tenant abandons the premises will not normally relieve him from the duty to pay rent. The amount owed may extend to the end of a lease or through any required notice period. But if the landlord has violated his express or implied duty to keep the property in repair, this may entitle the tenant to abandon the property and terminate the lease under the doctrine of constructive eviction. In that event no further rent would be due.
      A landlord may expressly or even just imply that he has terminated the lease by his actions. For instance, if the tenant abandons the premises without cause, and the landlord takes possession for his own purposes, this will probably constitute an acceptance of surrender by the landlord. In that event the tenant's further duty to pay rent may or may not be nullified. 

Tenant's Duty to Repair: At common law, a landlord, had no general duty to keep the premises in good repair. By contrast, the tenant had an implied duty to make minor repairs, an obligation arising from his duty not to commit waste. The concept was sometimes stated as a tenant's requirement to keep the buildings "wind-tight and water-tight". For example; they must replace a broken window or repair a leaking roof.
      But tenants were not required to make major repairs, such as the reconstruction of a building severely damaged by fire or flood; nor was he required to correct defects existing at the beginning of his lease.
      However, the widespread imposition of an implied warranty of habitability on the part of the landlord has resulted in the shifting of the duty of repair from tenant to landlord. In any lease where the landlord is held to have made such a warranty, replacement of a broken window or repair of a leaky roof will probably be his obligation, not the tenant's.
      The duty of repair may still be imposed on the tenant by means of an express promise to that effect in the lease. However, the courts sometimes refuse to even enforce that kind of clause in a rental agreement, particularly in residential leases. If the clause is simply a general promise to repair, the court will probably hold that there is no duty to overcome the effects of ordinary wear and tear. In any event, many repair clauses contain an explicit exception for such wear and tear. 
      Repairs or modifications may also be required by local government regulations, particularly where rental housing inspections have been adopted. Even if the tenant promised to make repairs, even those necessitated by his own use, he may have to make them in a timely manner, or the ordinance may require that the landlord do so. If repairs are not made, government may forbid occupancy of the dwelling.
      Where the tenant has explicitly promised to make repairs, the courts are split on whether he must do so. A decision is likely to turn in part upon the precise wording of the repair clause. 
      If the repair clause simply states that Tenant will keep the premises in repair, with no more specificity than that, most courts have traditionally held that the tenant must repair even damage caused by casualty. But a minority of courts hold that a duty to "make repairs" does not contemplate major rebuilding, so that the tenant is required neither to rebuild nor to continue paying rent.
      In any event, a promise to make "major repairs" will probably require rebuilding even where the premises is badly damaged by fire, because of its promise to make "all major repairs that may become necessary." In that event courts may hold that he is expected to carry fire insurance as he normally is to cover his own lease hold improvements and building contents. Although statutes exist in some states which relieve the tenant of the duty to repair in the casualty situation; this is sometimes done in conjunction with a statutory release of his duty to continue paying rent.  

Duty to Not Make Changes: Sometimes a tenant may wish to take an item of personal property, (chattel) and attach it to the land. When the attachment has occurred, the chattel is usually called a fixture. There are two principal issues raised by fixtures in landlord-tenant cases: (1) does the tenant have the right to make the attachment? and (2) does he have the right to remove it, and if so, when? The tenant's right to affix a fixture is generally discussed in terms of the doctrine of waste. Under the modern view, the tenant is permitted to make the annexation, if this would not unfairly interfere with the value of the landlord's reversion.
      The Restatement provides that the tenant may make annexations (or other changes) which are "reasonably necessary in order for the tenant to use the leased property in a manner that is reasonable under all the circumstances". Thus, it may be reasonable for a long-term tenant to build a garage in the back of a house that has none, and it may not be permissible for a tenant to build a partition between two rooms of a house that he has rented for only one year.
      Even if the annexation is permissible, the landlord always has the right to require the tenant to remove it at the end of the lease term. But, the landlord may also have the right to prevent the tenant from removing the fixture. Courts are not in agreement as to the test for determining whether the tenant may remove the fixture at the end of the lease term. Older courts frequently said that the test was one of intention; if the tenant, at the time he annexed the chattel, intended for it to remain his personal property, he had the right to remove it. But the modern tendency seems to be to consider whether removal will damage the landlord's interest; if it will, the fixture may not be removed, even though the tenant may have intended to keep the property as personally.
      In courts following the "damage to the landlord's interest" test, the issue is not whether the landlord's reversion will be worth less if the fixture is removed. Rather, the issue is usually whether the premises may be restored to their former condition after the fixture is removed; if so, removal is generally permissible (provided that the tenant does the restoration).
      Where the lease is for a term of years, the tenant must, according to most courts, remove his fixtures before he leaves the premises. Otherwise, they become the property of the landlord. In the case of a tenancy at will or periodic tenancy, the tenant is usually given a reasonable time following termination of the tenancy in which to remove.

Duty to Inform: The tenant has a duty to inform the landlord of any condition that my result in damage to the landlord's property or create a liability.

Duty to behave reasonably: The tenant has an implied duty to behave reasonably in his use of the premises. Thus he must not unreasonably disturb other tenants. However, the courts have made allowance for the fact that in modern apartment buildings, a certain degree of interference, particularly noise, is inevitable among tenants.

Duty to Obey Regulations: The tenant is also required to obey reasonable regulations promulgated by the landlord. For instance, a reasonable rule might prohibit skate-boarding and roller-skates in the building parking lot. RHOL includes a typical House Rules List in our Forms Web.

Duty to Obey the Law: In some states a tenant's behavior can now create a legal liability for a landlord. Various local ordinances that have been written to control drugs and gangs have been aimed at the property as well as the perpetrator and have held the landlord both financially and criminally responsible for events that take place in his property. Many communities have adopted so called "Drug Board-up laws" and have even attempted to charge landlords because tenants make too many calls to emergency services. Some rural areas even hold landlords liable for the cost of such services. One example is by placing a property lien when a tenant does not pay an ambulance bill.

Duty to Observe Health and building codes: Most building and health codes impose certain duties directly upon tenants. For instance, the tenant will typically be required to dispose of his garbage in a certain way. Single family tenants are usually expected to prevent roach and rodent infestation where in multifamily buildings the burden falls to the landlord.

Duty to Prevent Waste: The tenant has a duty not to commit waste. The common law duty to make minor repairs, is one facet of this duty.