Opinion
Decided June 1, 1937.
Landlord and tenant — Holdover tenant bound by terms of original lease, when — Effect of request for different terms, not acted upon by lessor.
1. A lessee, holding over after the expiration of the original lease, is bound by the terms thereof, in the absence of a clear intention of the parties to the contrary.
2. A request by a lessee for a change in the terms of the lease, at the expiration thereof, will not operate to change the binding effect of the terms of the lease, if the lessee holds over without action by the lessor upon the request.
APPEAL: Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga county.
Mr. Carl A. Mintz, for appellee.
Messrs. Howell, Roberts Duncan, for appellant.
The Gulf Refining Company, lessee, entered into the original lease about December 1, 1931. The lease contained an option giving the refining company privilege of renewing the lease for a period of one year beyond its termination. This option was exercised and the refining company became bound thereby as lessee for a period of one year, beginning December 1, 1932, and ending November 30, 1933.
On November 20, 1933, representatives of the parties to this action negotiated as to a future lease. The plaintiff, appellee, Margaret O. Smith, was asked for a letter granting the defendant, appellant, Gulf Refining Company, a month to month tenancy. Without going into the details we find no such letter was ever forwarded; that the representatives of the refining company were informed by plaintiff that she would take up the question with her attorney. The refining company remained in possession of the premises.
The obligation of defendant to pay rent for the five-month period from December 1, 1933, to May 1, 1934, is not in dispute and the trial court rendered judgment in that amount. It is the contention of plaintiff that the defendant became liable for rent for the period beginning December 1, 1933, and ending December 1, 1934, and therefore it was bound to pay the additional sum of $1050 representing rent from May 1, 1934, to December 1, 1934.
We are quite in accord with the statement of counsel for defendant that the theory of holding over is never permitted to operate against the clear intention of the parties to the contrary. We do not find from the record any such agreement to the contrary. The most that we find is that there was a request to that effect by a representative of the refining company, but such request was never acted upon.
When the refining company held over as it did, beyond the life of the lease, it became bound to the terms of the old lease. If the situation were reversed so that the refining company insisted on remaining an entire year, dated from December 1, 1933, but plaintiff refused to acquiesce in such demand, we would hold that the position of plaintiff was untenable, after allowing defendant to hold over beyond the term of the lease.
The parties became bound by the terms of the original lease to such extent as if a new lease were executed embracing the same terms and covering one year from December 1, 1933.
The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
TERRELL, J., concurs.
LIEGHLEY, J., dissents.