Case: Crechale & Polles, Inc. v.

Smith

Procedural History: Lower court said lessees not liable as holdover

tenants for an additional term of 1 year.

Facts: Lease was for 5 years. Near the end of the lease, lessor informed
that the new building he was planning to occupy would not be complete for a couple
of months after the end of his lease.
○ When lessee went to get an extension on the lease, there was an
alleged oral K for the lease extension.
○ Lessee then sent lessor a letter confirming oral agreement to extend
lease on a monthly basis.
○ Lessor sent back letter denying oral agreement, and requested that
lessee vacate the premises by end of lease term. Letter also said lessee would be
liable to double rent for any holdover.
○ Lease ended Feb 6. Lessee paid rent for period Feb-Mar, and lessor
accepted the payment.
○ Lessee paid rent for period Mar-Apr, but lessee did not accept
payment.
○ 2 1/2 mos after lease end, lessor sent letter that since premises
hold over beyond lease period, it was being treated as a renewal for another lease
term of a year.
Lessor filed the suit requesting lessees to pay monthly rent up until the
filing of the suit, less the rent paid.

Issue: Whether the lessees are required to pay rent for a new term of the
rental K as a holdover tenant. - No.

Holding: Affirmed.

Reasoning: the landlord has 2 options when a tenant remains in possession

(holdover) after the termination of the lease. He can either evict him or treat
him as a tenant (renewal of the lease). The landlord first requested that tenants
vacate the premises, but he failed to pursue the remedy for eviction. He cannot
later change his position and renew the lease for another year. Additionally, he
accepted the payment for the month after the lease termination, so he implied that
he accepted to the lease extension, and the rental on a month-to-month basis.