Tenant at Sufferance

Who then is a tenant? Under the Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises Law – Section 40(i) provides thus:-
"Unless the content otherwise requires "tenant" includes a sub-tenant or any person occupying any premises whether on payment of rent or otherwise but does not include a person occupying Premises under a bonafide claim to be the owner of the premises."
The qualification, therefore, for becoming a tenant under the Law is lawful occupation. See; Ibiyemi Odunje Vs Nigeria Airways Ltd (1987) NWLR (Pt.55) 126; (1987) 4 SC 202; (1987) All NLR 398, (1987) LPELR – SC.135.
However, where a tenant for a fixed term refuses at the expiration of his tenancy to vacate possession and wrongfully, that is, without the consent of the landlord, continues in possession, he would at common law be a tenant at sufferance. A tenancy at sufferance arises where a tenant, having valid tenancy, holds over without the landlord's assent or dissent. Such a tenant differs from a trespasser in that his original entry was lawful, and from tenant at will in that his tenancy exists without the landlord's assent. The tenancy may be determined or terminated at any time; and may be converted into a yearly or other periodic tenancy in the usual way." See; Megarry & Thompson, A Manual of the Law of Real Property 319, sixth edition 1993.

Secondly, while the appellant under the said State Lands Law was entitled to a further use and possession of the demised property for three months after the expiration of his lease, he remained, at common law, a tenant at sufferance of the property in dispute until he was lawfully ejected or sued for possession by the lessor. This is because, where a tenant, having entered the demised premises lawfully or under a valid tenancy in the first place. holds the same over at the expiration of the lease and remains in possession thereof without the landlord's assent or dissent, he automatically becomes a tenant at sufferance. See Remon v. City of London Real Property Co. Ltd. (1921) 1 KB 49 at 58. This class of lease or tenancy arises only by operation of law and not by express grant for it assumes an absence of an agreement between the lessor or landlord of the one part, and the lessee or tenant of the other part. See: Meye v. Electric Transmission Ltd. (1942)
Ch.290. It is nonetheless well recognised in law as a special class of tenancy or leasehold, enjoying, as it were; its attendant rights and privileges and terminable by the lessor or landlord by the ejection of the lessee or tenant by the due process of law. This generally, takes the form of a Court action against such a lessee or tenant for possession of the demised premises.