See Krasne v. Tedeschi & Grasso, 436 Mass. 103, 109, 762 N.E.2d 841 (2002) ( “Termination of a lease ends a tenant's obligation to pay rent in the absence of any provision otherwise”). See also Locke v. Fahey, 288 Mass. 341, 343, 193 N.E. 26 (1934); Fifty Assocs. v. Berger Dry Goods Co., 275 Mass. 509, 514, 176 N.E. 643 (1931); Sutton v. Goodman, 194 Mass. 389, 394–395, 80 N.E. 608 (1907). See generally G. Warshaw, Massachusetts Landlord–Tenant Law § 6.8, at 218 (2d ed. 2001).
Auer v. Penn, 99 Pa. 370. Inasmuch as the sole question reported and argued is that of surrender, we have not considered whether the ruling of the judge might also be rested on the indemnity provision contained in the lease. See Locke v. Fahey, 288 Mass. 341, 343-344. The judge made it plain that he believed Mitchell's version of the conversation, for in dealing with the defendants' fourth request, which asked for a ruling that a finding of surrender was warranted, the judge made the following ruling and findings: "Granted, but I do not so find.
In general, the termination of the lease ends a tenant's rental obligations absent a provision stating otherwise. See Locke v. Fahey, 288 Mass. 341, 343, 193 N.E. 26 (1934) (tenant not responsible for future loss in rental income since commercial lease “contained ... no covenant of indemnity or collateral agreement requiring the lessees, in the event of such entry or upon any termination of the lease, to pay to the lessor during the balance of the term of the lease the rent reserved or the difference between the amount of such rent and any lesser amount which might be received by him upon a reletting of the premises”). See also Edmands v. Rust & Richardson Drug Co., 191 Mass. 123, 127, 77 N.E. 713 (1906); Krasne v. Tedeschi & Grasso, 436 Mass. 103, 109, 762 N.E.2d 841 (2002).
Under the former c. 109, § 2(1)( a)V, persons dealing with the partnership after December 31, 1971, at least were placed on inquiry, by the certificate (not amended as to the date of termination) on file with the Secretary of the Commonwealth (a) whether the partnership had been dissolved and (b) what was the continuing authority of the general partner, except perhaps with respect to acts involved in liquidating the partnership affairs. See Locke v. Fahey, 288 Mass. 341, 344-345 (1934). See also Adelman v. United States, 304 F. Supp. 599, 602 (C.D. Calif. 1969); Rowley, Partnerships § 53.24 (1960).
" Krasne v. Tedeschi, 436 Mass. 103, 109 (2002). See also Locke v. Fahey, 288 Mass. 341, 344 (1934) (absent a lease provision to the contrary, upon a "termination of the lease . . . any claim . . . for rent thereafter accruing according to the terms of the lease [is] barred."). The Landlord contends that clauses 24 and 25 of the lease were "remedial covenants" which "survived the termination" of the lease, Wentworth Building Corp. v. Bernstein, 346 Mass. 770 (1963), and entitled the Landlord to damages herein.