7
1 unlawful detainer proceeding as they go to the issue of the landlord‟s right to possession—the
2 core of the proceeding. (Civ. Code §§ 1942, subd. (a) & 1942.5; Barela, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p.
3 249; S.P. Growers, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 723; Vargas, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 916.) If either
4 defense is proven, the landlord is not entitled to a judgment of possession as a matter of law,
5 even in the context of a month-to-month tenancy. The court here thus erroneously prevented
6 the Carters from establishing these defenses, instead incorrectly informing them with respect to
7 the habitability defense that “[i]f you feel like [Boyd] owes you money for services rendered,
8 that‟s something you can bring up in small claims court.” By this statement, the court obviously
9 and erroneously viewed the question whether the Carters were entitled to reimbursement for
10 repair costs as a separate issue from the right to possession of the premises to which the
11 habitability defense relates in an unlawful detainer proceeding. Having been precluded from
12 proving the breach of the warranty of habitability, they were likewise precluded from proving
13 that their actions in response led to what they claimed was a retaliatory eviction in that Boyd
14 attempted to terminate the tenancy and then evict them for paying rent beyond the attempted
15 termination date. This was legal error.
16 Boyd appears to contend that because the unlawful detainer proceeding was premised on
17 the second three-day notice to pay rent or quit, and not the prior 30-day notice to quit that
18 immediately followed the Carters‟ exercise of legal rights, they were precluded from asserting
19 these affirmative defenses as the case was only about whether they had not paid the half a
20 month‟s rent as stated in the second three-day notice. But even under Boyd‟s logic, this three-
21 day notice to pay rent or quit could only have been valid and enforceable if Boyd‟s right to
22 terminate the tenancy via the prior 30-day notice to quit were likewise valid and enforceable.
23 As we have observed, a landlord may not terminate a tenancy or evict a tenant in retaliation for
24 the tenant having exercised legal rights—a defense the Carters were prevented from
25 establishing. Thus, the validity and enforceability of Boyd‟s termination of the tenancy on
26 which the later three-day noticed was premised was in issue in this proceeding, as the Carters
27 contend.3
28
3
Having so concluded, we need not separately address the Carters‟ last claim on appeal.