Cited. 5 CA 101; 13 CA 150; 19 CA 564. Clear intent to treat differently those committing a serious nuisance and those failing to require others to desist from committing a serious nuisance. 28 CA 684. Cited. 32 CA 133. Subpara. (D): Defendant's appeal dismissed for mootness. 57 CA 731. Provisions are not restricted to actions of tenant and should take into account actions of tenant's guests. 79 CA 300. Does not require landlord in summary process action to allege in pleading tenant's failure to remedy violations specified in pretermination notice. 95 CA 802. Where notice to quit referred only to defendant's creation of “serious nuisance” by engaging in conduct which presents an immediate danger to other tenants or the landlord pursuant to Subpara. (C), and court's judgment in favor of plaintiff rested on conclusion that defendant threatened to inflict bodily harm pursuant to Subpara. (A), court had no subject matter jurisdiction to evict on a ground other than one charged in the notice to quit and discrepancy deprived defendant of notice of claims to be addressed by court. 123 CA 295. As defendant was not a tenant and had no right or privilege to occupy the premises, defendant was not entitled to a separate pretermination notice because defendant could not remedy the violation except by quitting the premises. 124 CA 728. Tenant cannot “repair” a breach of lease when the breach consists of drug related criminal activity. 129 CA 313. Court had subject matter jurisdiction over summary process action where plaintiff landlord did not deliver a pretermination notice to defendant tenant but alleged in notice to quit, which complied with Sec. 47a-23, that defendant tenant's conduct constituted a serious nuisance and court did not need to reach merits of whether defendant's