Javins v. First National Realty Corp.

The traditional common-law rule treated a lease chiefly as a conveyance of land and generally placed repair duties on the tenant absent an express covenant by the landlord. That rule grew from an agrarian setting in which the land was the principal value of the lease, tenants could make repairs themselves, and tenants often held long-term interests in the property. Those assumptions do not fit the modern urban apartment lease.

An urban tenant rents a package of shelter-related goods and services, not merely a possessory interest in land. The expected package includes safe and sanitary conditions, heat, light, ventilation, plumbing, secure doors and windows, and maintenance. Because the lease's central purpose is to provide a livable home, it should be construed under contract principles rather than through rigid property-law rules.

Modern warranty law protects consumers who must rely on suppliers' superior skill, knowledge, and ability to inspect and maintain what they provide. A landlord is similarly better positioned than a tenant to discover and correct structural, plumbing, heating, electrical, and sanitation problems. A tenant paying rent for a defined term may therefore reasonably expect housing fit for habitation throughout that term.

The rental market also makes reliance on bargaining and inspection unrealistic. Housing shortages, standardized leases, discrimination, and unequal bargaining power often leave tenants with little ability to demand repairs or choose better housing. These conditions reinforce the need for a nonwaivable legal protection of the tenant's legitimate expectation of habitable premises.

The Housing Regulations comprehensively prescribe housing standards, identify whether landlords or tenants bear particular maintenance duties, and impose criminal penalties for violations. Prior decisions had already recognized that the Regulations altered the old common-law no-repair rule and created maintenance obligations enforceable by tenants in tort.

The Regulations must also affect the parties' contract. Applicable law at the time and place of contracting is ordinarily treated as part of the agreement, particularly where the law expresses a strong public policy. It would be untenable to hold, as an earlier D.C. case had, that serious code violations at the start of a lease can render the lease illegal while treating the same code as irrelevant once the tenancy begins.

The code expressly requires premises to be maintained and kept in repair to provide decent, healthy, and safe living accommodations. Its duties cannot be waived or shifted by private agreement where the Regulations place the duty on the landlord. Reading the code into leases also supports effective enforcement when governmental inspection and prosecution alone have not adequately secured compliance.

Under contract principles, the tenant's duty to pay rent is dependent on the landlord's performance of its obligations, including the warranty of habitability. The trial court therefore erred by excluding the tenants' offered evidence of code violations and entering possession judgments without determining whether the landlord had breached that warranty.

The factfinder must decide whether relevant violations existed during the period for which rent is claimed and then determine what portion of the rent obligation, if any, was suspended by the breach. Relevant conditions include those affecting the tenant's apartment or common areas used by the tenant; trivial violations that do not affect habitability are insufficient. The landlord may also show that the tenant caused the damage through wrongful conduct.

If the breach extinguished the entire rental obligation, the landlord cannot obtain possession for nonpayment. If the breach suspended only part of the rent, the tenant may avoid a possession judgment by paying the amount actually found due. Once the landlord makes necessary repairs, rent again becomes due, and the decision does not prevent eviction on other lawful grounds or at the end of the tenancy.

The court also approved the use of payments into the court registry while the possession action is pending. Escrow protects both sides and may later be apportioned according to the factfinder's determination of rent actually due.