the tenant actually moving from the premises on the specified date. This construction is also consistent with the policy behind the legislation of encouraging orderly transition of tenancies in a way that would most ensure seamless continuity by penalizing those tenants who thwart the landlord’s ability to accomplish a seamless transition between tenants. Later in the statute, when the Legislature imposes a double rent penalty for any tenant remaining “in possession,” it is unlikely that they were referring to a different form of possession, because the statutory purpose to encourage the tenant to move from the premises on the specified date, or as close to that date as possible, remains constant throughout the legislation. State v. Thomas, 166 N.J. 560, 567-68, 767 A.2d 459 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Because the statutory goal is to encourage
recognizing without resolving the split in authority on the meaning of the word holding that the legislature intends different meanings when it uses different terms in a statute recognizing that the legislature would not generally use a different meaning for the same word in a legislative provision unless a different purpose was intended holding that an arbitrator was not bound by an earlier award involving a different contract and different union holding that the plaintiffs had relied on illinois law because they could have filed in a different forum having a different statute of limitations