With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in May 1983; and the Flat Top lease expired in October 1984. After the expiration of the leases, Drummond and United continued to conduct themselves in accordance with their previously existing contractual relationship. Based on correspondence between, and actions taken by, the parties, it is clear that both Drummond and United believed the 1972 agreement had worked to extend indefinitely the terms of the four original leases. However, as discussed above, that purported extension was ineffective as a matter of law. Because Drummond and United continued their lessor-lessee relationship after the expiration of the original leases, we must agree with the trial court that Drum-mond’s continued presence on United’s properties was as a “tenant at will.” See Linton Coal Co., 590 So.2d at 912 (<HOLDING>); see also Industrial Machinery, 344 So.2d at

A: holding that the damage for tenancy at sufferance during the holdover period was the monthly rent under the lease versus the apartments fair market value because the lease contained a provision requiring lease payments beyond the lease term
B: holding that the lessors interest in the leased property was subject to liens because it was perfectly obvious that the parties knew that the improvements at issue were the pith of the lease and that except for them the lease would not have been executed and because the improvements were essential to the purpose of the lease
C: holding that when notice to vacate was insufficient to comply with the terms of the lease lease was not properly terminated before commencement of summary ejectment action
D: holding that the term of the lease was so incapable of ascertainment that it rendered the lease void as anything other than a tenancy at will which the parties continued for years before that tenancy was terminated
D.