The trial judge will only order Tim to pay Larry back rent in the amount of $500 and find that Tim properly vacated the premises.

There are four types of leasehold estates: (1) Term of years; (2) Periodic tenancies; (3) Tenancies at will; and (4) Tenancies at sufferance. A term of years is a lease for a fixed, determined period of time. No notice is required for termination. A term of years greater than one year must be in writing to satisfy the statute of frauds.
A periodic tenancy continues for successive intervals until either the landlord or tenant give proper notice of termination. Unless otherwise agreed, the common law default rule requires notice to be given at least equal to the length of the period itself.
A tenancy at will has no fixed time or period, and it may terminate at any moment by either party. Reasonable notice must be given to terminate the tenancy at will.
A tenancy at sufferance is created when the tenant has wrongfully held over after the expiration of the original lease. It is usually short-lived and will continue only until the landlord either evicts the tenant or gives the tenant a new leasehold. Unless otherwise agreed by the landlord and tenant, the tenancy at sufferance is subject to those same terms and conditions as the original lease. In other words, the tenant will be required to pay the same amount of rent by the same method as agreed upon in the original lease. When the tenant holds over, the landlord has two options: (1) The landlord can evict and recover damages; or (2) The landlord can elect to give the tenant a new leasehold—expressly or impliedly. The majority rule is that the creation of the new leasehold is a periodic tenancy. The terms of the new periodic tenancy leasehold are the same terms as the original lease unless otherwise agreed upon.
Within the landlord tenant relationship in the residential context, the landlord has four duties: (1) The duty to deliver possession of the premises; (2) The duty to satisfy the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) The duty to satisfy the implied warranty of inhabitability; and (4) The duty to not breach the doctrine of retaliatory eviction. The covenant of quiet enjoyment is an obligation implied by law. It provides that tenant has a right to quiet use and enjoyment of the premises without interference from landlord. There are two ways that the covenant of quiet enjoyment can be breached: (1) If the landlord actually and wrongfully excludes the tenant from any or part of the premises; and (2) The landlord commits constructive conviction. Constructive eviction occurs when the landlord substantially interferes with tenant’s use & quiet enjoyment of property so much that the intended purpose of tenant’s occupation is frustrated. The tenant must give notice of the problem to give the landlord reasonable time to remedy the problem. In order to claim constructive conviction, the tenant must vacate the premises within a reasonable time after the landlord fails to correct the problem.

Tim’s Leasehold Interests: Tim’s initial lease with Larry was for a term of years because the written agreement specifically stated that the lease was for one year. Once Tim’s lease expired on April 30, 2014, his leasehold interest changed to a tenancy at sufferance because he remained in possession. He was wrongfully in possession of the studio apartment since his original lease had expired and no renewal was agreed upon. Larry remained a tenant at sufferance until the last day of May when Larry cashed his rent check. When Larry cashed Tim’s rent check, he impliedly consented to the creation of a new leasehold. At that point, Tim’s tenancy at sufferance converted into a month-to-month periodic tenancy. It is considered month-to-month because Tim was paying the rent per month.

Larry’s Lawsuit Against Tim:
Larry’s Rights Against Tim For Holding Over: Larry has a right to recover back rent in the amount of $500 from Tim for May 2014 through September 2014. The amount of $500 arises from Tim’s failure to pay $700 to Larry each month for rent. When Larry held over following the expiration of his lease, he was subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in the original lease. Since Tim only wrote a check for $600 instead of $700 for each of those five months, he is liable to Larry for the rest.

Larry’s Rights Against Tim For Failing to Give Notice of Termination:
Larry will try to argue that he should receive full rent for the month of October 2014 since Tim did not give proper notice. Since it has been determined that Tim’s tenancy converted into a month-to-month periodic tenancy upon Larry’s cashing of the rent checks, Tim was required to give notice at least equal to the length of the period. Thus, Tim was required to give Larry at least a months’ notice because it was a month-to-month periodic tenancy. Tim’s Lawsuit Against Larry:
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment: It is likely that Tim will countersue and argue that Larry breached the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment by failing to fix the window, and thus, he was allowed to vacate the premises without consequence. For Tim to be successful in this argument, he will have to: (1) Convince the judge that the failure to fix the window so substantially interfered with his living that he was constructively evicted; (2) Show the judge he gave notice to Larry and Larry failed to remedy the problem within a reasonable time; and (3) Show that he vacated the premises. Here, Tim will be successful on his claim because he can satisfy all three elements required for proving breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. First, Tim can show that the open window so substantially interfered with his life because he was forced to either be freezing cold or pay an extensive heat bill. Second, the notice element is satisfied because Tim gave notice to Larry about the broken window, and Larry failed to fix the problem within a reasonable time. As a matter of fact, Larry blatantly told Tim that he would not fix the problem because they agreed that repairs would be Tim’s problem. Third, Tim vacated the premises within a reasonable time after Larry refused to fix the window. It is likely that Larry will try to assert the argument that they agreed by contract that any repairs would be Tim’s problem. However, if the court finds that a repair issue so substantially interferes with a tenant’s life as to lead to constructive eviction, the particular repair will fall under the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The covenant of quiet enjoyment is implied by law, and it cannot be contracted around. Therefore, Larry’s argument is without merit. CONCLUSION:
Thus, it is likely that the court will find: (1) That Tim owes Larry back rent in the amount of $500; (2) That Larry breached the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, and Tim was allowed to vacate; and (3) Therefore, Tim is not liable for the October rent.