Which of the following best describes 'relief from forfeiture' in rental agreements?

The concept of 'relief from forfeiture' in rental agreements primarily involves a situation where a tenant is allowed to regain their rights to the property after having defaulted on their lease, typically by not paying rent. This relief can be granted if the tenant remedies the situation, often by paying back the overdue rent, thus restoring their tenancy rights.

When a tenant maintains possession by paying back rent, they demonstrate an effort to rectify their default, which aligns with the principle of relief from forfeiture. This process varies depending on local laws and the terms stipulated in the lease agreement, but generally, courts may provide this relief to prevent a tenant from losing their home due to circumstances such as temporary financial hardship.

The other options do not accurately reflect the concept of relief from forfeiture. For instance, if a tenant forfeits their rights to the property, it implies that they have permanently lost their rights without the chance of remedying the situation. Similarly, a landlord terminating a lease without notice or a tenant being forced to vacate immediately for non-payment does not offer the tenant an opportunity for relief, which fundamentally contradicts the essence of what relief from forfeiture seeks to achieve.