Mak v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, 240 Cal. App. 4th 60 (2015)

10
subdivision (c), and is not precluded by . . . section 1954.52, subdivision (a)(1).” (173
Cal.App.4th at p. 27.)
       As both the Rent Board and the superior court recognized, Regulation 1016 is a
reasonable means of discouraging a landlord from evicting a tenant based on the false
representation that the landlord or a family member intends to occupy the premises, and
then re-renting the premises at a higher rental rate than could have been charged to the
former tenant. The record amply demonstrates that this is what occurred in the present
case. When Burns agreed to vacate the premises and to enter the agreement undoubtedly
prepared by Maks’ attorney, she had no reason to believe that the Maks had misstated
their intentions and that her eviction was not authorized by the Berkeley ordinance. Nor
did she have any reason not to sign the agreement acknowledging that the notice of
termination would be withdrawn if she vacated and accept the substantial cash payment
offered her by the Maks. Burns had no reason to doubt that if she did not sign the
agreement she would still have been required to vacate the premises, without receiving
the cash consideration; indeed, the agreement expressly provides that the termination
notice would be withdrawn only if she did vacate the premises. Under the circumstances,
the termination notice inevitably was a significant factor causing Burns to agree to the
termination of her tenancy. The finding that the tenancy was terminated pursuant to the
termination notice can hardly be questioned, notwithstanding the attempt to
mischaracterize the situation in the agreement that Burns agreed to sign. Maintaining the
rent level of the former tenant is a rational and proportional deterrent to the use of such
an artifice in the future.