Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-342 (2026)
Effect of lessee holding over
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
When a lessee holds over and retains possession after expiration of the term of the lease without express contract with the owner, the holding over shall not operate to renew the lease for the term of the former lease, but thereafter the tenancy is from month to month.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case: Pima Cnty. v. Testin, 840 P.2d 293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
Pima Cnty. v. Testin, 840 P.2d 293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “In the instant case, Pima County argues for the first time on appeal that *119 A.R.S. § 33-342 is inapplicable because, at the expiration of the original three-year term, the lease expressly provides that it is to continue “on a year to year basis at a rent to be mutually agreed…”
Alton v. Tower Capital Co., 601 P.2d 602 (Ariz. 1979). “A.R.S. § 33-342. When defendant failed to pay rent due on September 15, 1977, Tower could treat the month to month lease as terminated without notice to defendant.”
Favour v. Joseff, 494 P.2d 370 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972). “The Judges believed that possibly this should receive a more complete analysis than set forth in the regular briefs.”
Growth v. Tenbar (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “A.R.S. § 33-342 (creating month-to-month tenancy); Pima Cnty.”
Mestro v. Pasionek (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “See A.R.S. § 33-342. The Pasioneks did not vacate the premises, so the Mestros filed an eviction action, alleging that when the Pasioneks refused to vacate the property, they became holdover tenants.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.