Opinion ID: 1908480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Two-Year Lease Terms

Text: Sections 93A-26(b) and 93A-27(c) require that all leases entered into after the effective date of Chapter 93A be offered for an initial term of two years, at the tenant's option, unless a reasonable cause exists for offering an initial term other than two years. The lower court invalidated these two sections, noting in its opinion: We read Article 53 as authorizing tenancy at will and at sufferance, tenancy for specific periods of time, tenancies up to three years. This is permitted by Article 53. In the Court's judgment the requirement here in subsection (b) making it mandatory that they be offered for a specific period of time, two years, is a conflict of a direct nature. After a careful reading of the provisions referred to (now contained in Article 21, § 8-402(b)(1), (4), and (5), see n. 8, supra ), we disagree. Article 21 provides a procedure whereby a landlord may recover possession of property leased for any definite term or at will. It does not create the different types of tenancies, but merely recognizes those created by common law. As noted supra, Part I, the Council may alter the common law and a conflict with the common law will not invalidate otherwise proper local legislation. Unlike the retaliatory eviction provisions, nothing in Chapter 93A conflicts with the procedure established by Article 21, § 8-402(b), nor deprives anyone of a right intended to be secured by that public general law. We think something more than the mere mention of the different types of leaseholds is required to show the intent of the General Assembly to establish each of those tenancies beyond further regulation by local governments.