or reasonable expectation that the lessee did not attempt to exercise the right to renew and be bound thereby. See, Sosani v. Pernetti Holding Corp., 115 N.J.Super. 409, 415, 279 A.2d 904, 908 (1971). 2 . In this appeal, it is not necessary to reach the question whether or not there are commonsense differentiations between options to repurchase, purchase, renew, or cancel such that different rules and results may be applicable when the lessee or lessor fails to give timely notice in these settings. Suffice it to say, that to this writer there is no apparent reason, nor has the defendant-lessor offered any, why the rule applicable to options to cancel a leasehold is or should be different than that applicable to options to renew. 3 . See Sum.Pa.Jur. Landlord & Tenant, § 281 (1956) (<HOLDING>). See generally, J. W. Pomeroy, A Treatise on
holding that clean water acts notice provision is a condition precedent to all claims recognizing that equity will grant relief to a lessee who fails to give timely notice which notice is a condition precedent to renewal where the failure is attributable to fraud accident surprise mistake or where there are other special circumstances which warrant a court of equitys action holding that rcras notice provision is a condition precedent to all claims holding that under the doctrine of equitable subrogation equity will grant relief where a mortgage is satisfied by mistake and no rights of third parties have intervened if the mistaken action was reasonable holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city