428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 925 (1970)
Several tenants rented apartments in Clifton Terrace, a three-building apartment complex in Northwest Washington, by separate written leases with First National Realty Corporation.1 On April 8, 1968, the landlord filed separate actions in the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the Court of General Sessions seeking possession on the ground that each tenant had defaulted in the payment of rent due for the month of April.2 The tenants admitted that they had not paid the landlord any rent for April but alleged numerous violations of the Housing Regulations as an equitable defense or claim by way of recoupment or set-off.3
The tenants offered to prove that there are approximately 1500 violations of the Housing Regulations of the District of Columbia in the building at Clifton Terrace, where the defendant resides, some affecting the premises of the defendant directly, others indirectly, and all tending to establish a course of conduct of violation of the Housing Regulations to the damage of defendants.4 They conceded at trial that this offer of proof reached only violations which had arisen since the term of the lease had commenced.5 The Court of General Sessions refused the offer of proof and entered judgment for the landlord.6
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the argument that the landlord was under a contractual duty to maintain the premises in compliance with the Housing Regulations.7 Because of the importance of the question presented, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the tenants' petitions for leave to appeal.8
Whether housing code violations which arise during the term of a lease have any effect upon the tenant’s obligation to pay rent?9
A warranty of habitability, measured by the standards set out in the Housing Regulations for the District of Columbia, is implied by operation of law into leases of urban dwelling units covered by those Regulations and that breach of this warranty gives rise to the usual remedies for breach of contract.10
Yes. Applying this rule to the ESTABLISHED FACTS, several tenants rented apartments in Clifton Terrace by separate written leases with First National Realty Corporation, the landlord filed separate actions on April 8, 1968 seeking possession on the ground that each tenant had defaulted in the payment of rent due for the month of April, the tenants admitted that they had not paid the landlord any rent for April but alleged numerous violations of the Housing Regulations as an equitable defense or claim by way of recoupment or set-off, and the tenants offered to prove that there are approximately 1500 violations of the Housing Regulations of the District of Columbia in the building at Clifton Terrace, where the defendant resides, some affecting the premises of the defendant directly, others indirectly, and all tending to establish a course of conduct of violation of the Housing Regulations to the damage of defendants, which had arisen since the term of the lease had commenced.11 The Court of General Sessions refused the offer of proof and entered judgment for the landlord. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed.
Because the tenant’s obligation to pay rent is dependent upon the landlord’s performance of his obligations under the implied warranty, the tenants must be given an opportunity to prove the housing code violations alleged as breach of the landlord’s warranty to determine what portion of the rental obligation, if any, has been suspended.12
Housing code violations which arise during the term of a lease do have an effect upon the tenant’s obligation to pay rent.13
Related opinions on this issue
Circuit Judge Robb concurs in the result and in Parts IV-B and V of the opinion.14