Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Citation
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Parent Document
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1979-01-22
Other Sections in This Document (31)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
- Steinegger v. Rosario, 402 A.2d 1 (1979)
Full Text
592 charsThe landlord suggested that §47a-12 entitled “Breach of agreement by landlord. Tenant’s remedies,” provided an adequate remedy to the tenant for the landlord’s breach of § 47a-7 (a) (2). It should be pointed out, however, that § 47a-12 (b) specifically excludes month to month tenancies. Consequently, if § 47a-4 (c) is construed as the landlord urges, a substantial number, if not a majority, of people who rent on a month to month basis are left effectively unprotected by this legislation. 5 As to roach infestation rendering a premises unfit, see Todd v. May, 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 731, 737. 6