Please cite to the original publication
The rule is that the necessity of a notice to quit is based on the relation of landlord and tenant, and where that relation does not exist, the notice to quit is not necessary. Therefore, it has been held that a mortgagor in possession, is not entitled to notice to quit, as he is "at most a tenant at sufferance, and may be treated either as a tenant or trespasser, at the election of the mortgagee." And no notice to quit is necessary where one has taken possession under an adverse claim. So, where the tenant going into possession of the premises under the title of the landlord, afterwards disclaims, he has no right to insist on a notice to quit. At common law, a tenant at sufferance was not entitled to notice to quit. But it has been provided by statute in some of the States, that it shall be necessary to serve him with notice to quit. It is so provided in Missouri, where one month's notice is required, and in Wisconsin. But in Michigan, and in Oregon, the statute requires a notice of three months. This provision, requiring notice to be given to tenants at sufferance, has given rise to some troublesome questions.
Date of Authorship for this Version