Holding over tenancy requires clear landlord assent; absent that, the occupant remains a tenant by sufferance and may be evicted.

A municipal commissioner could not create a binding lease beyond the Corporation's sanctioned terms, and the occupant's later correspondence and part-payments on altered terms did not amount to acceptance of the original proposal. No concluded contract arose, so eviction could not be resisted on that basis. A tenancy by holding over requires the landlord's clear assent to continued possession, usually through acceptance of rent as tenancy rent; payment at the old rate without such assent was insufficient. The occupant was therefore only a tenant by sufferance and was liable to eviction without notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a concluded contract arose between the Municipal Corporation and the occupant so as to prevent eviction. (ii) Whether the occupant could claim the status of a tenant holding over and the protection of notice before eviction.

Issue (i): Whether a concluded contract arose between the Municipal Corporation and the occupant so as to prevent eviction.

Analysis: A municipal commissioner could not bind the Corporation in respect of the lease except in accordance with the Corporation's sanction under the governing municipal law. The Corporation's resolution required payment on specified terms, which were not accepted by the occupant. Subsequent correspondence and part-payments were made on altered terms, after the suit had already been filed, and that later offer could not be treated as a continuation of the original proposal. The Commissioner's dealings beyond the Corporation's mandate could not create a binding contract.

Conclusion: No concluded contract came into existence, and the occupant could not resist eviction on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the occupant could claim the status of a tenant holding over and the protection of notice before eviction.

Analysis: A tenancy by holding over arises only where the landlord assents to continued possession, ordinarily by acceptance of rent as such and in clear recognition of tenancy rights. Payment at the old rate, after the Corporation had prescribed a new rent and without clear assent by the Corporation, did not amount to acceptance of rent in recognition of a renewed tenancy. The occupant was therefore only a tenant by sufferance, not a tenant holding over. In that situation, no notice to quit was necessary before eviction.

Conclusion: The occupant was not a tenant holding over and was liable to eviction without notice.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to eviction failed because neither a binding lease arrangement nor a protected holding-over tenancy was established.

Ratio Decidendi: A new tenancy under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act arises only from the landlord's clear assent to continued possession, usually by acceptance of rent as such in recognition of tenancy rights; absent such assent, the occupant remains a tenant by sufferance and can be evicted without notice.

---