the premises when he has reason to suspect defects existing at the time of the taking of the tenancy and to either repair them or warn the tenant of their existence. [Footnote omitted.] In other words he is under the duty to take those precautions for the safety of the tenant as would be taken by a reasonably prudent man under similar circumstances. Cummings v. Prater, 95 Ariz. 20, 26, 386 P.2d 27, 31 (1963); see also McLeod v. Newcomer, 163 Ariz. 6, 8, 785 P.2d 575, 577 (App.1989); Udy v. Calvary Corp., 162 Ariz. 7, 11-12, 780 P.2d 1055, 1059-60 (App.1989); Presson v. Mountain States Properties, Inc., 18 Ariz.App. 176, 178-79, 501 P.2d 17, 19-20 (1972); but see W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts § 63, at 434-435 (5th ed.1984) (hereinafter “Prosser & Keeton”) (<HOLDING>). In Udy, Judge Jacobson concisely explained
recognizing that the burden is on the landlord in a lease dispute to establish that the lease contract had been breached and that such breach entitled the landlord to the possession of the property in question holding the landlord did not trespass when his agent entered the premises for the purpose of showing them to a potential tenant 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 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 recognizing the general rule that the landlord is not liable for dangerous conditions existing once the tenant takes possession of the premises