Illinois Compiled Statutes
735 ILCS 5/9-204 (2026)
Rent in arrears - Re-entry
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/9-204)
(from Ch. 110, par. 9-204)
Sec. 9-204.
Rent in arrears - Re-entry.
In all cases between landlord
and tenant, where one-half
year's rent is in arrears and unpaid, and the landlord or lessor to whom
such rent is due has the right by law to re-enter for non-payment
thereof, such landlord or lessor may, without any formal demand or
re-entry, commence an action of ejectment for the recovery of the
demised premises. In case judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff in the
action of ejectment before
the rent in arrearage and costs of the action are paid, then the lease of
the lands shall cease and be determined, unless the lessee shall by
appeal reverse the judgment, or by petition filed within 6 months after the entry
of such judgment, obtain relief from the same. However, any
tenant may, at any time before final judgment on the ejectment, pay or
tender to the landlord or lessor of the premises the amount of rent in
arrears and costs of the action, whereupon the action of
ejectment shall be dismissed.
(Source: P.A. 82-280.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2021 · leading case: Vill. of New Athens v. Smith, 2021 IL App (5th) 200257 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
Vill. of New Athens v. Smith, 2021 IL App (5th) 200257 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “Section 9-204 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/9-204 (West 2016)) provides that a landlord may institute an action in ejectment without any formal demand where one-half year’s rent is in arrears and unpaid.”
Vill. of New Athens, 2021 IL App (5th) 200257 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “Section 9-204 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/9-204 (West 2016)) provides that a landlord may institute an action in ejectment without any formal demand, where one-half year’s rent is in arrears and unpaid.”
Tech. Innovation Ctr., Inc. v. Advanced Multiuser Tech. Corp. (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “One argument advanced by TIC was that no notice to quit was required to bestow jurisdiction because AMT was a tenant at sufferance (see 735 ILCS 5/9-213 (West 1992)) and because AMT was more than 18 months in arrears (see 735 ILCS 5/9-204 (West 1992)). Several exhibits were…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|