the tenant and a substantial interference by the landlord are prerequisites to a suit for constructive eviction. See Neslen, 123 Utah at 75-76, 254 P.2d at 850. Whether a landlord’s alleged wrongful service of a three-day notice to pay rent or quit constitutes a constructive eviction is a question of first impression in Utah. The majority of courts that have considered whether service of a notice to quit, without malice or harassment on the part of the landlord, constitutes a constructive eviction have held that it does not, even if the tenant chooses to vacate. These courts have adopted the view that: “[A] mere notice to the tenant to quit, followed by. his vacation of the premises, is not of itself sufficient to constitute an eviction and give the tenant a r Rptr. 566, 570-71 (1973) (<HOLDING>); Michaux v. Koebig, 555 S.W.2d 171, 177
holding mere notice to quit followed by peaceful vacation of the premises is not sufficient to constitute a claim of constructive eviction holding that wjhen a wrongful demand or notice to quit or vacate leased premises is made by a lessor or landlord and is followed by immediate surrender of possession by the lessee or tenant a constructive eviction has been accomplished holding that abandonment requires that tenant vacate the leased premises holding notice to quit is evidence that tenant did not leave voluntarily but absent showing of malice action for constructive eviction may not stand where there has been no physical interference with leased premises recognizing a landlords duty for injuries sustained on leased premises where the landlord is aware that the premises are leased with intent to admit the public