does not mean “prior to the end,” and permitted it to exercise the option within a reasonable time after the expiration of the lease’s original term. Because it exercised the option within ten days after the ten-year term of the lease had expired, City Sign contends that it complied with the “reasonable time” requirement and effectively renewed the lease. Citing a separate line of cases, Norton and LOA assert that the language “at the end of 10 years” required City Sign to exercise the renewal option within the original term of the lease. They assert that since City Sign did not give notice of renewal prior to the termination of the lease, the option to renew expired with the lease and was never properly exercised. After reviewing the cases Berets, 32 Utah 454, 91 P. 279, 282 (1907) (<HOLDING>). The reasoning behind this view is that the
recognizing that a lease providing for renewal at the termination of the lease did not require the lessee to exercise the option before the lease expired nor did it require renewal at the precise hour of termination but gave the lessee a reasonable time after the termination of the lease in which to make his election holding that the presumption of a yeartoyear holdover tenancy applies even if the original lease contained a renewal option if the tenant fails to affirmatively exercise the option holding that an option to renew at the expiration of the original lease was effectively exercised because the lessees holding over without express notification of renewal was deemed an election to renew the lease holding that the lease pro vision granting the lessee the option of constructing improvements did not make the construction the pith of the lease holding that under an option requiring renewal at the expiration of the lease the lessee was required to exercise the option on or before the last day of the lease