tzeyin, the question here is whether the new owner has had notice of the tenant's existing tenancy. if yes, then they are bound to take the property with the tenancy.

tzeyin, if the new owner was aware of the tenancy before signing the agreement, then the question arises, why did he not ask for a copy of the tenancy agreement to confirm the notice period? buyers are supposed to make reasonable enquiries before purchasing.

if the sale and purchase agreement:

(i) mentions the tenancy agreement - the new owner is stuck with it.
(ii) mentions the tenancy, but states that it is on a month-to-month basis - the new owner is stuck with it but can terminate with 1 months' notice.
(iii) has no mention whatsoever of a tenancy agreement - the new owner can assume its on a month-to-month basis, and terminate with 1 months' notice.

this is just my opinion. anyway if there is a tenancy agreement and the seller failed to mention it, the seller is gonna get sued by the tenant.

what gave the buyer the impression of the 3 months thing? was it the buyer's own assumption or did the seller say that?

why was it not recorded in the s&p that the seller should give notice to terminate the s&p upon signing?