Lena Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corporation, 463 F.2d 853 (1972)

Citation: Lena Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corporation, 463 F.2d 853 (1972)
Parent Document: Lena Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corporation, 463 F.2d 853 (1972)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1972-04-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/304588/lena-robinson-v-diamond-housing-... ↗

Full Text

1,331 chars

54
Fortunately, however, we do not share Diamond's gloomy assessment of the effects of our decision. All substandard housing in the District can be divided into two categories: those units which the landlord is unable to repair, and those units which the landlord could, but will not, repair. We submit that nothing in our decision today necessitates long term occupancy of housing in either of these categories. In situations where the landlord is unable to repair the premises, he has a legitimate business justification for taking the unit off the market, and he can therefore meet his responsibility under Section 2301 by evicting his tenants. In situations where the landlord is able but unwilling to repair the premises, he has, by hypothesis, made them uninhabitable and hence constructively deprived the tenant of possession. See Goldsmith v. Gisler, D.C.Mun.App., 150 A.2d 462 (1959); Ackerhalt v. Smith, supra, 141 A.2d 187; Lalekos v. Manset, D.C.Mun.App., 47 A. 2d 617 (1946). It should be obvious that a landlord may no more constructively evict a tenant for retaliatory purposes than he may actually so evict him. It follows that if the tenant is entitled to possession, he is also entitled to have the premises made habitable through a code enforcement action by housing authorities or a proper suit by the tenant.26

Other Sections in This Document (189)

Full Text