358 N.E.2d 817 (Mass. 1977)
The landlords leased apartments to the defendants for residential use in a building they owned.1 They also leased nearby premises to third parties for operation as a bar or cocktail lounge.2 The lease for the lounge required that entertainment be conducted so that it could not be heard outside the building and would not disturb the apartment residents.3 The landlords introduced this commercial activity into an area leased for residential purposes.4
The lounge presented amplified music from electric musical instruments and singing starting at 9:30 P.M. and continuing until 1:30 A.M. or 2 A.M. on Tuesdays through Sundays.5 The music penetrated the granite walls of the residential building and was described as unbelievably loud, incessant, raucous, and penetrating.6 Noise from patrons yelling and fighting also occurred, interfering with conversation and preventing sleep for the tenants.7
The residential tenants made numerous objections to the landlords about the disturbances.8 The landlords promised each tenant to correct the situation and complained to the lounge tenants from time to time.9 Although the noise would abate in response to the landlords' complaints, their attempts to remedy the problem were unsuccessful.10 Each tenant vacated his apartment within a reasonable time.11
The landlords brought consolidated actions for rent against the tenants.12 The trial judge found that the tenants were very substantially deprived of quiet enjoyment of their leased premises for a substantial time.13 The trial judge further found that the landlords had it within their control to correct the conditions which amounted to a constructive eviction of each tenant.14 Following entry of judgment for the tenants, the landlords appealed and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the appeals for its review.15
Whether the landlords are responsible for noise from the lounge they leased to third parties that disturbed their residential tenants?16
A landlord breaches the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment when the disturbing condition is the natural and probable consequence of what the landlord did, failed to do, or permitted to be done, even without intent to deprive the tenant, if the landlord had the right to control the objectionable conditions. The landlord's conduct, not his intentions, is controlling.17
Yes. The landlords leased apartments to the defendants for residential use in a building they owned and leased nearby premises to third parties for operation as a bar or cocktail lounge.18 The landlords introduced a commercial activity into an area where they leased premises for residential purposes.19 The lease for the lounge expressly provided that entertainment in the lounge had to be conducted so that it could not be heard outside the building and would not disturb the residents of the leased apartments.20
The lounge presented amplified music from electric musical instruments and singing starting at 9:30 P.M. and continuing until 1:30 A.M. or 2 A.M. on Tuesdays through Sundays, which penetrated the granite walls and was unbelievably loud, incessant, raucous, and penetrating, along with noise from patrons yelling and fighting that prevented sleep.21 The landlords promised each tenant to correct the situation, complained to the lounge tenants from time to time, and the noise would abate in response, showing they had it within their control to correct the conditions which amounted to a constructive eviction of each tenant.22
The landlords are responsible for the noise from the lounge that disturbed their residential tenants.23
Whether the landlords had the ability to control the objectionable conditions at the lounge?24
Where a landlord introduces a commercial activity into a residential area under a lease that expressly restricts noise and retains the right to enforce those restrictions, the landlord has the ability to control the objectionable conditions.25
Yes. The lease for the lounge expressly provided that entertainment in the lounge had to be conducted so that it could not be heard outside the building and would not disturb the residents of the leased apartments. The landlords received numerous objections from residential tenants, complained to the lounge tenants from time to time, and the pervading noise would abate in response to the landlords' complaints, demonstrating that the landlords had it within their control to correct the conditions.26
The landlords had the ability to control the objectionable conditions at the lounge.27