Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Golphin v. Park Monroe Associates, 353 A.2d 314 (1976)

Citation
Golphin v. Park Monroe Associates, 353 A.2d 314 (1976)
Parent Document
Golphin v. Park Monroe Associates, 353 A.2d 314 (1976)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1976-02-24

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text

717 chars
The actuality is that, even though the tenant here had a one-year lease, prior to the expiration of the lease the landlord abandoned his established policy of allowing the tenant to continue on into a monthly tenancy and sought to utilize the “judicial processes” to evict this tenant for retaliatory reasons. As we have seen, from Edwards, it is the law in this jurisdiction that the judicial processes may not be so used.10 Compare Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601-02, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L. Ed.2d 570 (1972). This being so, on the facts of this case we conclude that § 45-901, which provides that a landlord is entitled to possession without notice upon the expiration of a fixed term, is not dispositive here.