13
“Absent subsequent events that might have created a new tenancy,” an occupant’s
continued occupancy of the premises after the termination of the original agreement is
unlawful. (See Borden v. Stiles, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at p. 349 [death of original property
owner constituted a triggering event terminating original tenancy of employee by operation of
law, making employee’s continued occupancy unlawful “absent subsequent events” to create a
new tenancy].) No such subsequent events took place here. That defendants “force fed” rent
payments into plaintiff’s account and continued to occupy the premises after Rosales’s
termination does not change our conclusion, as plaintiff testified that once he detected the
unauthorized account activity, he immediately returned the payments to defendants.
In sum, defendants’ continued occupancy of the premises after Rosales’s termination
was unlawful, rendering the TPA inapplicable to the instant unlawful detainer proceedings.
(See Borden v. Stiles, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at p. 349 [“Such an occupancy would be unlawful,
rendering section 1946.2 inapplicable to the eviction proceedings initiated”]; see generally Civ.
Code, § 1946.2, subd. (k)(3) [tenancy is lawful occupation of residential real property].) Our
interpretation does not frustrate the TPA’s legislative intent to prevent excessive rent increases.
(See 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 842, 864 [the TPA notice
requirement “serves to protect against abusive evictions in that it acts as a partial deterrent to a
landlord’s disingenuous use of the right to evict . . . to evade . . . rent control law.”].)
Lawful Employment Termination
The defense of retaliatory eviction is an affirmative defense permitted by statute and
common law in an unlawful detainer proceeding. (Civ. Code § 1942.5; Boyd v. Carter (2014)
227 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 7 (Boyd); Vargas v. Municipal Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 902, 916
(Vargas).) “[W]here . . . the tenant is asserting that the eviction is in retaliation for having
exercised legal rights, a tenant is entitled to raise these issues as affirmative defenses in an
unlawful detainer proceeding as they go to the issue of the landlord’s right to possession—the
core of the proceeding.” (Boyd, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. Supp. 9.) Where tenant-
employees occupy the premises because of their status as employees, they would be in unlawful
detainer only if the employer-employee relationship was “lawfully terminated.” (See Vargas,
supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 907, fn. 1.) If a tenant-employee can prove unlawful termination of the