We also agree that the retaliatory-eviction claim does not here lie. It may well be, as tenants contend, that there are instances not provided for in the statute where the defense should be allowed. The defense of retaliatory eviction is from its inception a judicially recognized defense. Rooted in the equitable power of the court (see, Edwards v Habib, supra), it is similar in nature to an equitable estoppel. While it is primarily designed as a means of furthering the public policy of fostering *485decent and safe housing, it has been allowed, at least in other jurisdictions, even where the retaliation in question was not for the tenant’s assertion of housing-related rights but of other protected rights (see, e.g., S.P. Growers Assn. v Rodriguez, 17 Cal 3d 719, 552 P2d 721). In this jurisdiction, both courts and commentators have assumed that the case law defense continues to coexist with the statute (see, e.g., Kew Gardens Assocs. v Regan, 106 Misc 2d 267; Scherer, Residential Landlord-Tenant Law in New York § 11:20). As a result of the equitable nature of the defense, no per se rule can be laid down to govern the limitations of its applicability (see, e.g., Robinson v Diamond Hous. Corp., 463 F2d 853, 864).