With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". term while the lessee is free to accept or reject it. Thus, the courts will not .hold, the lessor to his promise any longer than he has agreed to be held. Sosanie v. Pernetti Holding Corp. (1971), 115 N.J.Super. 409, 279 A.2d 904, 908; University Realty & Development Co. v. Omid-Gaf Inc. (1973), 19, Ariz.App. 488, 508 P.2d 747, 749. Carsten v. Eickhoff, 163 Ind.App. 294, 299-300, 323 N.E.2d 664, 667-68 (1975) (emphases added; footnotes omitted). But we made it a point in Carsten to note that that case was “not within the line of cases in which the lease calls for a higher rent during the second term and the lessee holds over paying the higher rent.” Id. at 669 n. 3 (citing Kramer v. Cook, 73 Mass. 550, 550 (1856)); see also Pearman v. Jackson, 25 N.E.3d 772, 780 (Ind.Ct.App.2015) (<HOLDING>), not yet certified. [15] In another case, we

A: holding that an option to renew at the expiration of the original lease was effectively exercised because the lessees holding over without express notification of renewal was deemed an election to renew the lease
B: recognizing and applying rule that lessee who breaches a lease is entitled to a rent credit for any proceeds gained by the landlord from reletting during the period of the original lease term
C: holding that where the rent payments during the original and extended terms were the same the lessees payment of rent and continued occupation of the leased premises standing along was insufficient  to establish that they had exercised their option to renew the lease for an additional term
D: holding lessor entitled to full months rent when rent due on first of month and lease rejected on second
C.