*1 THOMAS E. DUNNINGTON JARRELL CO.
No. Court of Columbia. District 16,1953. Feb.
Jоseph Schneider, C., Washington, H. D. Lindas, C., with whom Washington, Ben D. brief, appellant. was on the C., Jackson, Washington, Thomas S. D. Denit, with whom Louis M. P. Baxter Fain, Davis Martin R. Washington, C., brief, appellee. D. were on CAYTON, Before Judge, Chief QUINN, HOOD and Associate Judges. HOOD, Judge. Associate Appellant is a tenant of an fоur-apartment building. His commenced 1939 under written month- ly appellee, lease with a real agent estate manages owner, Mrs. Weedon. Since 1942 the protection session been under the District Columbia Emergency Rent May Act.1 In notified four tenants to vacate because the own- to made improve- er desired “extensive property. ments” to the Three tenants appellant vacated but refused to move. apartments The three vacant were re- improved. May modeled and In 1951 the this action for appellant’s apartment, alleging ap- pellant implied agreement violated an the landlord to enter the necessary repairs, ment to make keеp building in safe and to pipes install heating other in the build- complaint alleged ing. The the con- tenant constituted duct a nuisance seq. Supp. I, et Code 45-1601 *2 quit Emergency had alleged that notice to Rent Act has about and further ordinary a writing. greatly altering in situation specifically waived the relationship of landlord The and tenant. tenant had trial court that the The found possession protected long is so purpose premises the for an unlawful used pays complies as he rent and with the act. the unreasonably refused to allow and tenanсy The can landlord the terminate pipe through the to run a only prescribed under conditions limited above, to heat ment furnish by the act. Thus indeterminate tenancies the tenant’s conduct and concluded upon are forced the In the in- landlord. Judgment a constituted nuisancе. case, monthly stant this tenant with a landlord and the session was awarded the tenancy possession has retained for more appealed. tenant has years by than ten virtue of the rent act. question The first is the whether Metropolitan In National Bank of Wash- thirty days’ notice. tenant was entitled ington Judge, D.C.Mun.App., It that he was so entitled un is conceded we held that a tenant whose writing. less he had waived notice in The depends on rent recognize the act must the provision on the of the lease relies rights accordingly. of the landlord and act prоviding in for waiver the event the there recog- We held that because the act premises the for an tenant used “unlawful right nizes the of a landlord to sell his purpose” points- finding and to the court’s property, premises fully a in order to were used for such exercise such purрose. question This raises the he has also the to show the supported a whether the evidence such premises purchasers prospective at rea- finding. think it did not. We There duty sonable times and that it is the of the prem that the tenant used the no evidence showing. tenant tо any improper ises in or unlawful manner. recognizes The rent act also the complaint is directed The landlord’s not premises right of a landlord to alter use of but his or the tenant’s the premises, and, enter them. applying refusal to allow the remodel the leased premises use of case, There was unlawful the principle the of the we think consequently the tenant and was entitled to the landlord has the tо reasonable days’ thirty notice.2 The landlord failed a inspection premises the order to de give and notice therefore wаs no remodeling termine whether or alteration tenancy judg of the and the termination and, so, is desirable or if what possession cannоt stand. ment for Furthermore, it will take. we think form a landlord, because of the rent act disposes foregoing The this case and power lease, to-terminate a without the here, might stop but we assume that repairs as right to make such are proceed neces requi- the property suit, sary protect his from waste site notice and file new and certain present- deterioration, questions again now rаised will and in order to and do so Basically controversy ed. the between the at entitled to parties involved times to to make such in- Othеrwise, years over a improvements spection and prevent- the landlord from knowing could pro his condition of from tecting it from detеrioration even general landlord, rule is that a collapse ruin. The- refusal of the ten in the absence of reservation of permit this would not ant to constitute a lease, has no upon in the to enter be a but would violation of an nuisance tenancy. However, obligation of his repairs.3 implied existence given by Landlord and notice tke 2. The by had been waived ac 32 Am.Jur. continuous Clark, 1869, ceptanсe of rent. Kaufman D.C. Cf. was not floor beams reason out, thirty days’ notice, the rotted floors in the kitchen and by terminated replaced. bathroom had to be Also the judgment be reversed. must were in a dis- window sills state of total Reversed. *3 many panes were window out. these Some of conditions also existed Judge (concurring). QUINN, Associate upper apartments. in the two majority trial agree with the I to allow these conditions to exist and that were erroneous and findings court’s refuse to correct thirty-day tenant entitled to a no- was certainly them would be It would waste. agree that a has the also tice. I entirely the owner here for in or- right to enter his inquire if the that same conditions inspeсt for waste and make der to existed in the other existed repairs prevent necessary waste. But apartment, in defendant’s she had and as that Rent Act should do not believe I apartment not been in his of rights. as for these be used the basis years, eight way knowing she had no of provides for the of Act itself assertion contrary. to the I believe that the owner property rights as basic should be allowed altering remodeling, selling. prevent repairs to make the it nowhere does landlord the But it, but do not feel the Rent Act is I that Further, though to make proper foundation base on 'which to 1942, has in force since the Act these rights. interpretation judicial it been no has which would bestow such a on a land- stated, gen- has
lord. As Hood a landlord
eral rule that I believe that this rule sound, prevents as it
unnecessarily arbitrarily interrupting a tenancy. But there is a well-found-
lеgal MADDEN et al. v. BADGETT rule, namely, to the ed modification No. 1317. may Court of for the repairs prevent which waste.1 District of Columbia. rule, I feel that it is оn this and not on an interpretation Act, the Rent 30, March base the landlord’s should to enter. emphasize T would also this repairs entry pre- еxtends waste,2 repairs and not to vention of all would
which desire to make. majority with the that this agree
I meaningless unless it accom-
would be by.
panied implied right entry inspecting for waste.
In the case these instant facts should The owner had
be mentioned. not been in apartment eight for at least
years. In the across the hall Palms, 671, 694, 370; 129 Mich. 89 N.W. Landlord L.R.A. 67. 196; Am.Jur., Bulen, App., Ohio Rammell N.E. “waste” has 2. The word a well-defined le Hampshire 167; meaning. v. New gal Flanders Sav. 44, 2d Cf. Vol. Words and Bank, Phrases, Lauer N.H. “Waste.”