that petitioner has consistently attempted to raise his rent, however, none of the petitioner's lease
renewal attempts were tendered on the DCHR approved form nor were the amount of rent
increases within the permissible percentage guidelines. Respondent contends that petitioner has
[*3]never offered him a proper ETPA lease renewal and as a
result of petitioner's attempts to improperly raise his rent, on March 15, 2020 respondent also
filed an Overcharge Complaint with the DHCR.
In opposition to the motion, petitioner summarily contends that respondent's claim of
retaliation is without merit since the notice to terminate respondent's tenancy was sent on
February 20, 2020, which was before the complaints to the DHCR were filed by respondent.
Petitioner further contends that, contrary to respondent's contention, respondent's filing of the
complaints with the DHCR were done in retaliation to respondent being issued the notice of
termination. Moreover, petitioner further states that the petition in the instant matter was not filed
until November 23, 2020 [FN2]
solely as a result of the COVID restrictions that prevented filings in the preceding months. The
Court notes that petitioner failed to address that portion of respondent's motion to dismiss based
upon its alleged failure to state a cause of action for the termination of an ETPA tenancy in its
petition.
ETPA § 2504.1(a) provides that a tenant cannot be evicted except on one or more
grounds specified in ETPA § 2504.2. ETPA § 2504.2 provides that after service and
filing of the requisite notice an action to remove a tenant may be maintained where: the tenant is
violating a substantial obligation of the tenancy other than the obligation to surrender possession;