And if I`m not in the apartment (on a business trip or vacation, etc.), I know they`ll stay even longer. You can submit them in writing to the landlord and even if they refuse to use them, the process clearly shows with evidence that you can be replaced as a tenant at very low cost. Any barrier that is invented is most likely considered non-mitigating to its loss. Well, the interruption clause of the first reading sounds pretty simple, but the words are slippery things, especially if you`re trying to be too specific, and I think that clause is ambiguous. For example, I am here to help real people who have real problems; Both landlords and tenants, I don`t make any comments without knowing why it`s useful for BOTH parties. He had to be protected within 30 days and, in the event of a sanction, you could not continue without your roommate allowing you to assert the right. However, for a new lease agreement (no unilateral renewal), they must issue a new IP, note that PI is not the confirmation of the deposit company, but a separate notice containing all the information about the lease agreement. This differs from the original lease at least on the start date. Why would the clause not be valid? The termination clause is one of those clauses that (on the surface) can be designed and interpreted in many ways….