27 Pa. Super. 540 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1905
Opinion by
The facts of this case are concisely and accurately stated in the opinion filed by the learned judge below, and little can be added profitably to his discussion of the legal question involved. It is argued in opposition to his views and conclusion that the tenancy as it existed after the tenant held over was distinctly described in the lease itself as a tenancy at sufferance ; that this was an erroneous description of the relation, because this sort of tenancy cannot arise by contract, either expressed or implied; therefore the parties must be deemed to have contemplated a tenancy at will, which is, in effect, a tenancy from year to year. By this ingenious reasoning the words “shall be a mere tenant at sufferance” are given the same effect as would be given to the words “ shall be a tenant from year to year.” Thus the conclusion is reached that at midnight of the last day of the month for which the premises were specifically demised a term of one year began, that at the expiration of that year, if the tenant held over without three months’ previous notice to quit, another similar term began, and so on to the present time. The argument is based on an interpretation of the words “ shall be a mere tenant at sufferance ” contrary to their plain meaning, and the result reached is the very one which the parties manifestly intended to avoid. Granting the impossibility of creating a strict tenancy at sufferance by agreement, as argued by counsel, they have not made it clear that it was not competent for the parties to agree that, so far as the right of the landlord to re-enter at the expiration of the first month or of any succeeding month was concerned,
Order affirmed at the costs of the appellant.
