*2 SOLE, FORD, BROSKY, DEL Bеfore ELLIOTT and JJ. SOLE, DEL Judge:
The issue presented is whether the of the Mobile (MHPRA), Home Park Act 1976 Nov. P.L. 1176 No. 261, apply to a mobile home park possession owner who seeks spаce term, of a leased of a following expiration whether that owner follow the contained in procedures amended, The Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951 as 68 P.S. § 250.101 et seq.
Appellant is the of park, owner a mobile-home known as Denny Appellees Estates. are owners of a mobile home who leased lot # 20 in Appеllant’s park. The term of the lease months, was for years three and nine and the lease expired on 25, January quit, dated 30, 1993. written notice By April existing lease that their 1993, Appellees Appellant advised under circumstances” or renewed “not be extended would May On on May and would terminated before possession action to оbtain Appellant brought Appel- in favor of judgment A was entered District Justice. of County Court Allegheny lees, Appellant appealed an award Pleas. A Board Arbitrаtors Common novo for a de appealed Appellees. Appellant again favor case on agreed to submit parties trial. The nonjury facts, in favоr the matter and the decided stipulated Appellees. has term tenant’s
Appellant argues when is entitled to recover home owner expired, mobile that the reasons premises. Appellant of the leased *3 of the term apply only during of MHPRA requirements Land of the expiration provisions lease and after its of reсovery to respect and Tenant Act with govern lord and reverse. possession. agree We decid- previously cases begin analysis reviewing We our draw a distinctiоn this court. note that the cases ed We ejectment ejectment eviction. discussed between and We 602, Homes, Miller, 611 v. 416 Pa.Super. Instant Inc. Childs (1992) denied, 397, in 1208 533 Pa. 618 A.2d appeаl A.2d of upheld owner’s to obtain park right which we a of following the lease. We premises expiration the leased that the rejected arguments of the tenants sрecifically for to landlords MHPRA established exclusive scheme Rather, that the Act does we determined possession. recover of the lease. apply following expiration to but held that The trial court this case cited Childs a term to at the lease park expiration it a owner required the act. The trial compliеs a new lease that proffer and rejected such has been only after an offer determined leave, park is the owner refuses to the mobile home ownеr to Landlord proceedings pursuant to permitted begin erred The trial court possession. Act to recover Tenant 422 a proffered. must be While new
concluding that a new lease Childs, such an offer is not making lease was offered in silent as to what occurs a of the Act. The Act is requirement expired. with a tenant whose lease has Act, 1976, Nov. P.L. The Mobile Home Park 1; seq. specifies § § 398.1 et No. 261 68 P.S. a mobile home resident circumstances under which 398.3(a) states: be evicted. Section for only A mobile home resident shall be evicted following reasons: (1) Nonpayment of rent.
(2) of the subsequent A violation of the rules second period. park occurring mobile home within six-mоnth (3) parts If land or change there is a use thereof.
(4) Termination of mobile home (b) addition, procedure In which sets forth the under section resident, to required owner is a mobile home violation of the particular the resident of the breach or notify that the lease. of the statute leads us to conclude reading Our Act is in effeсt. reaffirms applies only when Childs apply only in the MHPRA ruling our that the eject A has a right evictions under a leasehold. landlord expired. tenant once the lease has Courts, also relied on Malvern The trial court this case (1980). Pa.Super. Inc. v. 419 A.2d Stephens, Malvern, eviction, however, ejectment. not an concerned an *4 Malvern, term of the sought during In an eviction was the the MHPRA. for one of the reasons enumerated under lease requirements the notice The eviction was disallowed becausе in referred to protection of the MHPRA were not met. The lease term and offers more applies only during Malvern by than that offered to mobile-home tenants protection adds to the nothing the Landlord Tenant Act. Malvern whether the MHPRA the lease argument applies about after spent The court in Malvern considerablе expired. term has in promul in discussing legislature time the intention was legislation that agree Act. While we gating the owners in order protection to mobile home designed provide to expense at substantial to arbitrary evictions prevent arising residents, pertains note that to situations only we this during the lease term. lease, case, Aрpellant in
Appellees’ expired. the instant had resident, protec- require was not which would Act, the resident be- provided by ejecting tion but was Therefore, the Landlord’s longer cause lease no existed. in covered the instant case was rights possession Landlord, Act, is entitled to Appellant, Landlord Tenant and there no Bеcause was premises. recover said lease, bound this action is not Appellant present not MHPRA, Appellees favor of is and verdict entered proper and must reversed. Appellant. and in favor of judgment
Order reversed relinquished. Jurisdiction J.,
BROSKY, opinion. files a concurring BROSKY, Judge, concurring: I agree majority with the that our decision Childs Instant Homes, Miller, (1992), A.2d 1208 Pa.Super. Inc. v. ejectment. distinguished actions for evictions actions Thus, is precedent support- on the basis of that our decision and, for that logical able and a extensiоn of that decision reason, However, I I am majority’s concur decision. that such a distinction entirely legislature certain our had in mind in their drafting question. Appellees, whеn the act brief, quote legislative Manderino in session as Representative follows: allowing expiration
The of not eviction at the purpose entire on the that residents of period is based fact facility moving these don’t have much mobile parks home, investment, another mobile which be their life communities, many zoning pro- hоme In ordinances individual lot. moving hibit the of that mobile home to an guts This is of the bill. *5 Journal, House, July seq. Pa. 2078 et Legislative
From Act, Pa. Further, Park the Mobile Home 398.1, to be all following provided § notice requires C.S.A. parks: lеssees of mobile home your terms of lease or govern The rules set forth below law with this mobile home The occupancy agreement fair and reasonable. requires all of these rules stay park long you pay You continue to in this as as fees, charges service your rent and other reasonable rules of by hereinafter set forth and abide assessments park.... upon § The act then lists all the reasons 68 Pa.C.S.A. 398.4. for guidelines a tenant can be evicted and sets forth which allowing an eviction. Two of the reasons stated for such land or park parts is if there is a use of the change evictions thereof or if the is terminated. park coupled Manderino with quote Representative
The from Act, stay park a tenant to a of the which allows rules, my by as as the rent and abide long they pay legislature opinion, supports strong argument park in a mobile home stay meant to allow a tenant the rent and assess- indefinitely long paid as as the tenant was in long park ments and abided the rules and аs as If this indeed was being park.1 the business of a mobile home intent, today they I our decision their trust that the wake of clearly to amend the act to enunci- appropriate steps will take ate that intent. balancing represent of the fashion the act would a careful
1. Read this parties. By providing grounds relevant interests of thе two rules, nonpayment and the a tenant which include violation of of rent ending park’s park the interests of existence as mobile home owner(s) protectеd. They will not be of a mobile home are troublemaking nonpaying they tenant nor can forced to live with a stay who need simply be forced to in business because thеre are tenants hand, place place be assured a to live. On the other a tenant would expulsion protected capricious from the as to live and be from long payed and would not be as he or she lived the rules and the rent by Representative exposed problem addressed Manderino above.