- 8 -
increased and the term was limited to month to month. See Woods
v. Bank of Haywards, supra at 94, 96. The court held that the
tenant's "continued occupancy of the premises must be regarded as
an extension of the [prior] lease". Id. at 96.
In Woods, however, the original lease contained a provision
which allowed the tenant the right to remove its trade fixture
(contractual right of removal). See id. The court read this
contractual right of removal into the holdover tenancy. See id.
In Knox v. Wolfe, supra at 502, the court held that a
tenant's holding over did not result in a new tenancy but only
extended his original tenancy. As in Woods, the original lease
in Knox contained a contractual right of removal. See id. at
499. The Knox lease additionally provided that any holdover
would be "upon all of the terms and conditions" of the original
lease. Id. at 501. The court, therefore, found that the
tenant's contractual right of removal was carried over from the
original lease into the tenant's holdover tenancy. See id. at
502.
In the case at bar, there was no contractual right of
removal in the original lease. Furthermore, the original lease
did not provide that any holdover was "upon all of the terms and
conditions" of the original lease. Therefore, Woods and Knox are
distinguishable from the case at bar.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011