The tenant of a commercial lease remained in the premises after the expiration of the term, relying on an overholding clause that stated the tenancy would become month-to-month if the tenant continued to occupy without further written agreement.
The landlord, who had secured a new tenant and demanded vacant possession, locked the tenant out.
The application judge found the tenant was validly overholding.
The Court of Appeal allowed the landlord's appeal, holding that an overholding clause requires the landlord's consent (usually evidenced by acceptance of rent) to create a month-to-month tenancy, and does not grant the tenant a unilateral right to remain.
