Javins v. First National Realty Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1970 · Property

Propertylandlord-tenantimplied warranty of habitabilityhousing codesrent withholdingnonpayment evictionhousing regulationsurban leases

Facts

Each appellant rented an apartment in Clifton Terrace under a separate written lease. When the landlord sued for possession based on nonpayment of April rent, the tenants admitted nonpayment but asserted numerous violations of the District of Columbia Housing Regulations as an equitable defense or by way of recoupment or set-off equal to the rent claim. They offered to prove approximately 1500 housing code violations in the complex, including violations affecting their apartments directly and indirectly, but conceded that the offer concerned violations arising after the lease term began. The trial court refused the offer of proof and ruled for the landlord.

Issue

Do housing code violations arising during the term of an urban residential lease affect the tenant's obligation to pay rent? More specifically, is a warranty of habitability, measured by the District of Columbia Housing Regulations, implied by law into covered urban dwelling leases so that breach may be raised as a defense in an eviction action for nonpayment of rent?

Rule

A warranty of habitability, measured by the standards set out in the District of Columbia Housing Regulations, is implied by operation of law into leases of urban dwelling units covered by those Regulations. The landlord's breach of that warranty gives rise to the usual contract remedies, and the tenant's obligation to pay rent is dependent on the landlord's performance, including maintenance of the premises in habitable condition.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel rents an apartment in Washington, D.C. from Crescent Row Housing, a fictional landlord. After the lease begins, the unit repeatedly loses heat in winter, the bathroom plumbing backs up, and the hallway she must use is filled with broken lighting; Nina withholds two months of rent, and the landlord sues only for possession based on nonpayment.

What is the strongest argument for Nina in the possession action?

Explanation. The majority held that leases of urban dwelling units covered by the housing regulations contain an implied warranty of habitability measured by those regulations. In a nonpayment possession action, the tenant must be allowed to prove relevant violations as breach of that warranty because the tenant’s obligation to pay rent is dependent on the landlord’s performance. The tenant need not show the lease was void at inception, need not rely on a separate tort action, and may rely only on conditions affecting her apartment or common areas she uses.