§ 266
- Citation
- § 266
- Parent Document
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 1983-05-31
Other Sections in This Document (80)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 263
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
Full Text
460 chars. Before the trial court, landlord also contended unsuccessfully that the tenants had lost their opportunity to bring the matter before the RAC since its limitation period of 12 months had elapsed and the increase was, therefore, not subject to challenge. We do not reach the issue whether, under RAC rules, a challenge to a rent increase of the type mounted by tenants was required to be made within twelve months of the effective date of the rent increase. 6