Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)

Citation
Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
Parent Document
Tamamian v. Gabbard, 55 A.2d 513 (1947)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1947-11-12

Full Text

978 chars
We cannot disregard the fundamental distinction between tenant and roomer. To do so would involve many complications. Along with' the tenant’s right to a notice to quit is the duty on him to give notice if he desires to terminate the tenancy. If we hold by analogy that a roomer is entitled to notice, then by the same analogy we would have to impose on all roomers a corresponding duty to give notice. If we disregard the distinction then we must hold, contrary to Beall v. Everson, supra, that the taking of a roomer is a violation of a covenant against subletting. Furthermore, unless the distinction is maintained, a roomer may be subjected to the rule that upon a demise there is no implied warranty that the premises are fit for habitation, that the tenant takes the risk of safe occupancy, and takes the premises as he finds them “under the gracious protection of caveat emptor.”13 A disregard of the distinction may easily bring more burdens than benefits to the roomer.