This rule might be applicable if Patchett's previous landlord was claiming adverse possession of the disputed strip by means of Patchett's tenancy. However, Patchett was not a tenant of the Joneses, and therefore the Joneses cannot rely on Patchett's farming of the disputed strip in order to establish successive possession. Moreover, if the Jonesés were allowed to tack Patchett's farming of the disputed strip, as the trial court concluded, Patchett would effectively be claiming adverse possession against his own landlord. In Reese v. Coffee, 133 Ind. 14, 32 N.E. 720, 721 (1892), our supreme court held that it is an elementary principle of the law that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of his landlord. See also Davey v. Meier, 117 Ind.App. 577, 73 N.E.2d 56, 58 (1947) (<HOLDING>). Here, Patchett was a tenant of the disputed
recognizing the general rule that the landlord is not liable for dangerous conditions existing once the tenant takes possession of the premises holding that where the landlord was aware the tenant had moved out a tenant who attached a lock to the door and accidentally retained the keys to the lock was not a holdover tenant recognizing that it is a wellestablished rule that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of his landlord existing at the commencement of the tenancy holding that the tenant was not a holdover tenant despite retaining keys because the tenant recognized the termination of the tenancy relinquished possession of the premises and the landlord was able to gain access to the property holding the landlord did not trespass when his agent entered the premises for the purpose of showing them to a potential tenant