I earlier posted on a situation I find myself in as a tenant. I'm on a month to month tenancy after my 1 year lease expired in los angeles, ca. I gave 30 days notice, but was unable to move. I talked to the landlord one week before the end of the 30 days and he had not rented the apartment, verbally agreeing to let me stay, asking for a cancellation notice in writing. Upon receiving the notice 2 days later, he's now demanding that I sign a new lease of vacate the premises. Since I gave the 30 day notice, it appears that I ended the month to month lease, and that, according to a holdover clause in my original lease, I now need the owner's consent to remain on the premises, or pay double the prorated rate for every day I remain in the apt, as well as legal charges. I hate being shaken down like this but I was the one who "broke" the terms of the lease, by giving notice. If he initiates an unlawful detainer action against me, will I be technically evicted and liable for all his expenses, because I can't sign a new lease? I can't find any info on whether a landlord can make this demand.

Once he agreed to accept the withdraw of your notice to move, you went to a month to month rental with him, he may evict you anytime he wants with a 30 day notice to move.
So if you will not sign a new lease, he is free to evict you.

He can change the rate of rental, but only with a 30 day notice of such. (( unless the lease allows for higher rent)

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, he claims that he didn't okay my request to cancel my 30 notice to move; merely that I should submit it to him in writing, which is a lie. Upon receiving my written request, he claims that is when he decided not to honor it. I don't want to fight any possible eviction if it comes down to the holdover clause in my original lease, having to pay double the rent and his legal fees, if he makes that claim to the court. In CA, I believe he would normally have to give me 60 days notice to vacate, I've been here over a year on my original lease, but I know he's trying to lock me in to a lease because he may have a hard time rerenting, the unit next to mine has been vacant for a month. Not sure why he's being unreasonable when I'm willing to keep going month to month. I still have good credit and don't want the legal hassle.

It's an interesting question, but I tend to agree with Fr_Chuck. Once you gave him the notice, and he agreed to let you stay on a month-to-month basis, the lease was at an end and therefore the holdover clause is void as well.

Of course it's a fact question as to which one of you is more believable. But if the judge believes your testimony as to what the LL said, you would prevail.