Section 2

Citation: Section 2 3.
Parent Document: Altschuler v. Boston Rent Board, 425 N.E.2d 781 (1981)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 1981-09-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2134881/altschuler-v-boston-rent-board/ ↗

Full Text

1,026 chars

3. The landlord also makes a series of arguments based on what is said to be the reasonableness of its actions here. The landlord first argues that it could not reasonably determine what equipment was required by G. L. c. 143, § 3R. It is apparently true that on May 10, 1977, the Boston building department reversed its prior position and adopted the view that the statute required electric striker mechanisms. But there is nothing in the record to establish that the landlord had previously made any effort to comply with the statute during the nine months when the building department agreed with the landlord as to its requirements. Nor did the landlord subsequently install even the locks which it believed to be required (and which were ultimately held to be required) during the pendency of its action before the Appeals Board. The fact of the matter is that the landlord was never in compliance with-the statute during the period for which the general adjustment was denied. For that reason, such denial was not error.

Other Sections in This Document (120)

Full Text