*49The city’s claim of blamelessness in creating the uninhabitable condition to justify its position, is of dubious merit. For the city, by ineffectual and untimely code enforcement action, permitted conditions to worsen.
The city, in effect, contends it need not carry out the housing preservation public policy which it imposes on private owners.
Generally, legislative reliance is placed on the traditional role of a judicial forum (in this city the Housing Court) to resolve nonpayment summary eviction proceedings to obtain private owner repairs or code enforcement. Withholding or abatement of rent, deposit of rent or avoidance of civil penalties and injunctive relief, until violations are cured or repairs made, are used to compel habitable housing and rehabilitation. This process functions on a case by case building by building, daily basis, but in the vacuum of any comprehensive housing strategy and flexible funding program by Federal, State and city government. It is clear that deposit of rent, either with HPD or the court in this proceeding, would not produce code enforcement or habitable housing but imposes a punishment or penalty on tenants who are innocent victims of absentee owner contempt and city indifference.