Bettens

This is an action in unlawful detainer. Plaintiff recovered judgment for the possession of the premises and damages, and defendant has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Defendant is the assignee of the original lessee; and plaintiff, by virtue of a lease (which includes the property sued for), from the owners of the property, to plaintiff, for a term of nine years, has succeeded to the rights of the original lessors.

Hereafter in this opinion we shall designate the lease under which defendant claims as the Hoover lease.

The first point relied upon by appellant is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The complaint does not attempt to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer by a lessee after default in. the payment of rent, but is framed upon the theory that defendant is holding over, without the consent of the landlord, after the termination of his term. In such a case the three days’ notice, provided for in subdivision 2 of section 1161, Code of Civil Procedure, is not required. (Earl Orchard Co. v. Fava, 138 Cal. 76 , [ 70 Pac. 1073 ].)

The Hoover lease is set out in the…