3
The provisions of section 1942.5, subdivisions (c) through (g) state as follows:
“(c) It is unlawful for a lessor to increase rent, decrease services, cause a lessee to quit
involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to do any of those acts,
for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because he or she has lawfully organized
or participated in a lessees’ association or an organization advocating lessees’ rights or
has lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law. In an action brought by or
against the lessee pursuant to this subdivision, the lessee shall bear the burden of
producing evidence that the lessor’s conduct was, in fact, retaliatory. [¶] (d) Nothing in
this section shall be construed as limiting in any way the exercise by the lessor of his or
her rights under any lease or agreement or any law pertaining to the hiring of property or
5
Tenants’ protection from retaliation by their landlords for exercising their rights
under California law developed simultaneously from legislation, section 1942.5,
subdivision (a) (Stats. 1970, ch. 1280), and the decision by the California Supreme Court
in Schweiger v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 507, 513 (Schweiger), as an affirmative
defense to an eviction action.4 Schweiger arose from a tenant’s use of the “repair and
deduct” remedy afforded him under sections 1941 and 1942 to repair two broken
windows and a broken back door. The landlord retaliated against the tenant the next
month by more than doubling the tenant’s rent and, when the tenant failed to pay the
increased amount, brought an unlawful detainer action to evict the tenant. In upholding
the tenant’s right to assert an equitable defense of retaliation to the landlord’s eviction
action, Justice Mosk stated that, “[i]f we fail to recognize a reasonable limitation on the
punitive power of landlords to increase rents and evict tenants, the salutary purposes