Similarly, the purpose of the statute is to provide remedies for tenants who may have unequal bargaining power with respect to the landlord over services that are within the landlord’s control and within the context of their landlord-tenant relationship. Section 47a-13 clearly enlarges the landlord’s liability beyond the liability imposed by the common law, particularly by allowing the recovery of double damages and attorney’s fees. Also, permitting a recovery for personal injuries under this statute would represent an even more extraordinary enlargement of a landlord’s liability. There is, however, absolutely nothing in the legislative history supporting such an expansive construction of the actual damages allowed by the statute, and it would be reasonable to expect that if the legislature intended to enlarge landlord liability to this extent it would have either used very clear language evidencing this intent or expressed this intent explicitly during the legislative discussions about the statute. Although certainly not conclusive, the complete lack of explicit authorization or any legislative discussion about such a broad, unprecedented enlargement of landlord liability to include double damages for personal injuries fails to support the plaintiffs argument.