A right of re-entry for a breach of any term or condition other than for non-payment of rent is not enforceable unless what occurs?

• A. Always enforceable without notice
• B. Notice of the particular breach is given
• C. Enforceable only with a court order
• D. Only for non-payment of rent

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that eviction by re-entry for a breach (other than non-payment of rent) must follow a proper notice process. A landlord cannot enforce a right to re-enter or terminate the tenancy simply on the basis that a term was breached; the tenant must be told in writing exactly what was breached and given an opportunity to remedy it. That notice serves as due-process protection and lets the tenant fix the problem or prepare to leave if necessary. If the breach remains after the notice and cure period, the landlord can then pursue eviction through the proper legal channels.

This is why the answer is that a notice of the particular breach must be given. The other options don’t fit: enforcing without any notice bypasses due process, requiring a court order at the outset isn’t the initial enforceable step, and restricting re-entry only to non-payment of rent ignores breaches of other terms that still require notice.