The tenant rented a small store which had a front door used by customers and a back door leading to the kitchen. The tenant obtained a set of keys to the back door from the outgoing tenant who did not have keys for the front door. The landlord was not aware that the tenant did not have keys to the front door and had the tenant asked for them she would have provided them. The tenant occupied the store for a couple of months while the landlord was doing renovations. During this time the tenant always accessed the store by the back door. When a water heater located in the tenant's kitchen needed a repair, the landlord authorized her repairman to change the lock on the back door to get immediate access. Neither the landlord not the repairman advised the tenant of the change in the lock assuming that the tenant had a key to the front door. When the tenant found out the back-door lock had been changed, thereby locking him out, he stopped paying rent. The landlord sued for outstanding rent, arguing that she did not repudiate the lease in that the changing of one lock was necessary for her repair man to gain entry to the store to fix the water heater and believing that the tenant had access through the front door 1. Identify the main legal issue? (2 marks) 2. What is the main legal test/rule of law governing this issue? (1 mark) 3. Develop arguments for the plaintiff, applying the rule of law to the facts. (1 mark) 4. Develop arguments for the defendant, applying the rule(s) of law to the facts. (1 mark)