Ranjha v. BJBP Properties, Inc.
988 N.E.2d 964
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Ranjha signed a 12‑month lease for apartment 507 at 18 E. Elm Street, Chicago, commencing August 1, 2011, monthly rent $1,165.
- In the 12 months before signing, Chicago cited the building for code violations (Jan 5, 2011: exitway obstruction and rear garbage containers; Nov 9, 2010: ventilation permits and furnace issues).
- The landlord did not disclose these code violations to Ranjha before or at lease execution.
- Ranjha sent a December 12, 2011 request for prior-year code citations; landlord failed to provide them to tenants generally.
- Ranjha sued on January 17, 2012, asserting RLTO 5-12-100 disclosure violations and seeking remedies under 5-12-090 (one month’s rent or actual damages, whichever is greater).
- The circuit court granted Landlord’s 2-615 motion to dismiss, holding surrender of possession required for recovery; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether surrender of possession is required to recover the RLTO remedy. | Ranjha argues no surrender is needed to obtain one month’s rent/actual damages. | Landlord contends surrender and delivery of premises are prerequisites to any RLTO remedy. | Surrender is not required to recover the greater remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pooh-Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. County of Cook, 232 Ill. 2d 463 (2009) (standard for Section 2-615 dismissal)
- Willis v. NAICO Real Estate Property & Management Corp., 379 Ill. App. 3d 486 (2008) (pleading sufficiency and de novo review standard)
- Winfrey v. Chicago Park District, 274 Ill. App. 3d 939 (1995) (statutory interpretation and relief standards)
- Nowak v. City of Country Club Hills, 2011 IL 111838 (2011) (rules of statutory construction and ambiguity)
- Landis v. Marc Realty, L.L.C., 235 Ill. 2d 1 (2009) (liberal construction of RLTO to promote purpose)
- American National Bank v. Powell, 293 Ill. App. 3d 1033 (1997) (purpose of RLTO and liberal construction)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (2009) (avoid superfluous statutory interpretation)
- Easley v. State, 119 Ill. 2d 535 (1988) (absurd consequences caution in interpretation)
- Smith v. People ex rel. Department of Public Aid, 212 Ill. 2d 389 (2004) (interpretation standards for ambiguous statutes)