Not sure who is right here... I signed a two year lease that expires on 9/30/2010. There is a Holdover by Lessee clause in the lease that states,

"Holdover by lessee. Should lessee remain in possession of the demised premises with the consent of Lessor after the natural expiration of this lease, a new month-to-month tenancy shall be created between Lessor and Lessee which shall be subject to all the terms and conditions hereof but shall be terminated on 60 days written notice served by either Lessor or Lessee on the other party".

and another clause that states,

"Surrender of premisesAt the expiration of the lease term, Lessee shall quit and surrender the premises hereby demised in as good state and condition as they were at the commencement of this lease, reasonable use and wear thereof and damages by the elements expected.

I thought this meant that at the lease expires on September 30th unless I have asked, and received permission from landlord to stay longer on a month-to-month basis, which would then require 60 days notice to terminate. My landlord is trying to tell me that I had to give him 60 days notice that I was leaving at the end of my lease, and since I didn't I am responsible for rent here until mid October! However, in my reading of those two clauses, it appears that the lease expires on September 30th unless I choose to stay and no where does it mention 60 days notice BEFORE the end of the lease.

I need to know who is right. I have already found another place to live and cannot afford over-lapping rent payments. If it helps, I live in California.