## Facts

- Clairton Corporation (landlord) leased commercial premises in Monroeville, Pennsylvania to Geo-Con, Inc. (tenant) for a two-year term from September 15, 1988 to September 15, 1990.
- The written lease required total rent of $173,877.36, payable in 24 equal monthly installments of $7,244.89, due on the first day of each month.
- The lease contained no provision specifying the duration or terms of any holdover tenancy.
- When the lease term expired, Geo-Con remained in possession with Clairton’s consent for about seven months and continued paying the same monthly rent; Clairton accepted those payments.
- During the post-expiration period, the parties discussed a possible new lease arrangement (including additional space) but never executed a new lease or agreed to a definite new term.
- Geo-Con vacated the premises in April 1991 and stopped paying rent.
- Clairton sued for rent it claimed was owed for the remainder of an alleged one-year holdover term (through September 14, 1991).
- After a non-jury trial, the court entered a verdict for Clairton but awarded only $1,466.50; post-trial motions seeking greater recovery were denied.

## Issues

1. When a tenant for years remains in possession after lease expiration with the landlord’s consent and no definite new agreement, does Pennsylvania law imply a fixed one-year holdover tenancy on the prior terms or a month-to-month tenancy?

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the order denying post-trial relief.
- The court held that Geo-Con’s post-expiration occupancy constituted a month-to-month tenancy rather than a fixed one-year holdover term.
- The court left undisturbed the limited damages award of $1,466.50 and rejected Clairton’s claim for additional rent based on a one-year holdover theory.

## Legal Principles

- After a lease for a term of years expires, a tenant who remains in possession may be treated as a holdover tenant, and the landlord may elect to treat the continued possession as subject to the prior lease’s terms, conditions, and covenants.
- The duration and character of a consensual holdover tenancy are determined from the circumstances and the parties’ conduct; a one-year term is not automatic.
- Acceptance of rent on a monthly basis during continued occupancy, coupled with the absence of a definite new term, supports an inference of a month-to-month tenancy.
- A landlord’s election to impose a fixed extended term must be clear from the circumstances; continued negotiations and acceptance of monthly rent may negate an inference of election to bind the tenant to a full-year term.

## Conclusion

The court treated the parties’ post-lease arrangement as month-to-month because they had no definite new term, the landlord accepted monthly rent, and negotiations for a new lease continued; the landlord could not later impose a one-year holdover obligation after the tenant vacated.


Clairton Corp. v. Geo-Con, Inc., 635 A.2d 1058 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993)