to damages. The theory being that to constitute a constructive eviction there must be some substantial interference which is injurious to the tenant’s beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises." Kaplan v. McCabe, 532 So.2d 1354, 1356-57 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) (emphasis added) (quoting R.P. Davis, Annotation, Tenant’s or Subtenant’s Right to Damages for Claimed Constructive Eviction or Breach of Covenant Based Upon Notice to Tenant to Vacate or Other Termination Notice, 14 A.L.R.2d 1450, 1451 (1950)); see, e.g., Nygard v. Juneau Yacht Club, 126 F.Supp. 535, 536 (D.Ala. 1954) (adopting majority rule that mere notice to quit, followed by vacation of premises, is not itself sufficient to constitute constructive eviction); Lindenberg v. MacDonald, 34 Cal.2d 678, 214 P.2d 5, 8-9 (1950) (<HOLDING>); Asell v. Rodrigues, 32 Cal.App.3d 817, 108
holding that a bad faith claim is a tort holding that if the town acted in bad faith in negotiations and litigation which prevented construction then the plaintiffs on remand cannot be deemed to have lost any rights to vest that they would have been able to exercise in the absence of bad faith holding that sublessee who vacated upon notice could not recover for constructive eviction in absence of showing that lessor acted in bad faith holding threat by lessor to resort to legal process when made in good faith is not intentional conduct supporting finding of constructive eviction holding the bad faith rationale inapplicable given that the defendants acted in good faith in appealing the case and in raising defenses to the plaintiffs claims