Brief Fact Summary. A tenant reported sanitary code violations on leased premises and thereafter the landlord moved to evict the tenant.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. That proof of retaliatory motive does constitute a defense to any action for eviction.
Issue. Does the landlord have an absolute right under these circumstances to terminate the month to month tenancy and evict the tenant?
Held. No. Reversed and remanded.
The promulgation of the housing code by the District of Columbia Commissioners under authority from Congress implies a change in the relative rights as between landlords and tenants.
Proof of retaliatory motive is a defense to any action of eviction where the alleged retaliation occurs due to the tenant’s reporting of housing code violations.
Edwards challenged the constitutionality of the statute under which the landlord may elect to terminate a month to month tenancy upon a thirty day notice to quit, where judicial enforcement of such statute would render state aid to the landlord in depriving tenant of a property right, namely, the tenant’s right to report housing code violations. The Court found that this issue need not be decided. Instead, the Court would allow the tenant to present proof in an eviction proceeding of a retaliatory motive by landlord in the instituting of the eviction suit.
Because the Court has a duty, as a court of equity, to consider the social implications of its decisions, the Court found that the public policy of protecting tenants in slum housing from inequalities resulting from their social conditions must be considered in rendering this decision.
The Court found that the balance between the statutes authorizing the landlord to evict a month to month tenant after thirty days notice and the housing code statutes can only be struck by holding the eviction statutes inapplicable where the court’s aid is sought to effect an eviction in retaliation for reporting housing code violations.
Discussion. Because this case was denied certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, the principles announced may have more persuasive value than a typical state case. Clearly, the Court was swayed by the social conditions and traditional notions of equity.