N. feel free to ignore me, but not because i am wrong (i'm not)
truth be told, i'm still a relative novice with only 22 years at the bar, so i'll defer to Jeff's experience and legal acumen. But just the same, know that the courts that decide such things might not agree with him. Take for example this summary of the law from Roth v. Dillavou, No. 2-04-0840 (IL 9/21/2005) (IL, 2005)
"A tenant who remains in possession after his or her lease has expired becomes a tenant at sufferance. (a case is cited here) At the landlord's sole option, a tenant at sufferance may be evicted as a trespasser or treated as a holdover tenant....A holdover tenancy is created when a landlord elects to treat a tenant, after the expiration of his or her lease, as a tenant for another term upon the same provisions contained in the original lease."
"Even when a holdover tenancy is not created, the parties' conduct may create a month-to-month tenancy (a case is cited)....Both a holdover tenancy and a month-to-month tenancy are governed by the terms of the original lease. (citation) However, a holdover tenancy lasts as long as the original lease term, while a month-to-month tenancy can last indefinitely, although it can be terminated on 30 days' notice.
N, you might be a holdover, maybe a month to month tenant. It depends.