Implied tenancy under property law is month to month for non-agricultural use unless a valid contrary lease exists.

Where possession continued with the landlord's assent and rent was accepted, but no valid lease was created, the implied tenancy was governed by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Because the premises were taken for building purposes and not for agricultural or manufacturing use, the law treated the occupation as a month-to-month tenancy from inception. An annual description of rent did not create a yearly tenancy, as that would contradict the admitted intention and the requirements for a valid lease under section 107. The notice to quit was therefore sufficient to determine the tenancy, and the eviction defence based on a yearly lease failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts proved, the defendant's occupation after acceptance of rent by the Receiver created a tenancy from month to month from its inception, or only a yearly tenancy that came to an end without holding over.

Analysis: The admitted facts were that the defendant remained in possession with the permission of the Receiver, who represented the plaintiff's estate, and paid rent which was accepted. Although the parties had intended a long-term lease, no operative lease came into existence because the document relied upon could not satisfy the legal requirements of a valid lease. In the absence of a valid contract to the contrary, the duration of an implied lease is governed by the purpose of the tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the land was taken for building purposes and not for agricultural or manufacturing use, the statutory presumption was a tenancy from month to month. The fact that rent was expressed as annual rent did not justify creating a separate yearly lease, because that would amount to substituting a new contract contrary to the admitted intention and to the requirements of section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Conclusion: The tenancy was monthly from its inception, and the defendant could not avoid eviction on the footing that only yearly leases had been created.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff's notice to quit was sufficient to determine the tenancy, and the defendant's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where possession is continued with the landlord's assent and rent is accepted for premises used for a non-agricultural purpose, the tenancy implied by law is month to month under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act unless a valid contract to the contrary is established.

---