LANDLORD AND TENANT. A term used to denote the relation which subsists by vir tue of a contract, express or implied, be tween two or more persons, for the posses sion or occupation of lands or tenements ei ther for a definite period, from year to year, for life, or at will.
When this relation is created by an ex preSs contract, the instrument made use, of for the purpose is called a lease. See LEASE. But it may also arise by necessary implica tion from the circumstances of the case and the relative position of the parties to each other ; for the law will imply its existence in many cases where there is an ownership of land on the one hand and an occupation of 4t by permission on the other; and in such cases It will be presumed that the occupant intends to compensate the owner for the use of the premises; Carver v. Jackson, 4 Pet (U. S.) 84, 7 L. Ed. 761; Dunne v. Trustees of Schools, 39 Ill. 578 ; Lamed v. Hudson, 60 N. Y. 102.
In an action for possession of land and damages for holding over after expiration of a term, proof that plaintiff was owner, that defendant paid rent to him, and that he was duly notified to surrender possession, estab lishes the relation of landlord and tenant; Duffy v. Carman, 3 App. 207, 29 N. E. 454. A tenancy is created by the occupation or temporary possession of land, the title to which is in another ; Ins. Co. of Pennsyl vania v. O'Connell, 34 III App. 357.
The intention to create. This relation may be inferred from a variety of circumstances; but the most obvious acknowledgment of its existence is the payment of rent; and this principle applies even after the expiration of a lease for a definite term of years ; foi if a tenant continues to hold over, after his term has run out, the landlord may, if he chooses, consider him a tenant, and he is, in fact, understood to do so, unless he proceeds to eject him at once. If the landlord suffers him to remain, and receives rent from him, or by any other act acknowledges him still as tenant, a new tenancy springs up, usually from year to year, regulated by the same covenants and stipulations entered into be tween the parties at the creation of the orig inal term in so far as they are applicable to the altered nature of the tenancy; Abeel v. Radcliff, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 505; Dorrill v. Stephens, 4 McCord (S. C.) 59; Right v. Darby, 1 T. R. 159 ; [18931 1 Q. B. 736 ; Thie baud v. Bank, 42 Ind. 212 ; Hall v. Myers, 43
Md. 446; Stoppelkamp v. Mangeot, 42 Cal. 316. Until some act of recognition by the landlord the holding over tenant is a tenant at will. Emmons v. Scudder, 115 Mass. 367.
It is at the option of the landlord to treat him as a tenant or he "is a Wrong-doer and may be treated as such by the owner, his landlord." His tenancy may be continued by consent, either express or implied, but with out such new contract, the tenant continues a wrong-doer and is liable to be treated as such. "The mere unbroken silence and in action of the owner will not improve or enlarge the character of the tenant's posses sion ;" Den v. Adams, 12 N. J. L. 99. Each holding over by a tenant constitutes a new term ; Kennedy v. City of New York, 196 N. Y. 19, E. 360, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 847, and note; Borman v. Sandgren, 37 Ill. App. 160 (a monthly letting) ; Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Co. v. Leavitt, 109 Ill. 385 ; Griffith v. Lewis, 17 Mo. App. 605 ; contra, Bowen v. Anderson [1894] 1 Q. B. 164 (a weekly let ting) ; Ward v. Hinkleman, 37 Wash. 375, 79 Pac. 956 ; Hull v. Sherrod, 97 Ill. App. 298 ; Hett v. Janzen, 22 Ont. Rep. 414.
A tenant for a year or more, who holds over, becomes a tenant from year to year, even though the rent is made payable quar terly or monthly ; Amsden v. Atwood, 69 Vt. 527, 38 Atl. 263 ; Belding v. Texas Produce Co., 61 Ark. 377, 33 S. W. 421; Schneider v. Lord, 62 Mich. 141, 28 N. W. 773; Intfen v. Foster, 8 Kan. App. 336, 56 Pac. 1125. But in Kaufman v. Mastin, 66 W. Va. 99, 66 S. Nl 92, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 855 ; White v. Sohn, 65 W. Va. 409, 64 S. E. 442, where the lease was for a year and the rent was payable monthly, the renewal was held to be for a month. If the tenant holds over by consent of the landlord, either express or implied, the new term is equal to that previously held ; Rothschild v. Williamson, 83 Ind. 387 ; Ketcham v. Ochs, 74 App. Div. 626, 77 N. Y. Supp. 1130, affirming 34 Misc. 470, 70 N. Y. Supp. 268 ; Schneider v. Curran, 19 'Ohio Cir. Ct. 224 ; Simmons v. Jarman, 122 N. C. 29 5, E. 332. If the term be for less than a , year, the renewal is for another equal term, , on the same conditions, .even though the rental payments were at intervals less than the term. It is said that the ques tion may depend upon the use to which the property is put;. Kaufman v. Mastin, supra.