## Facts

- Yvonne C. Edwards rented a District of Columbia residential unit from Nathan Habib on a month-to-month basis beginning in March 1965.
- Edwards complained to the District’s housing authorities about unremedied sanitary and housing code violations in the premises.
- An inspection found more than 40 violations, and the agency ordered Habib to correct them.
- After the inspection and enforcement order, Habib served Edwards a statutory 30-day notice to quit and obtained a default judgment for possession in the local trial court.
- Edwards moved to reopen the case, asserting excusable neglect and alleging the notice to quit was issued in retaliation for her housing-code complaints; the default was set aside.
- At trial before a different judge, the court excluded evidence of retaliatory motive as irrelevant and directed a verdict for the landlord, awarding possession.
- The local intermediate appellate court affirmed on the view that a landlord may terminate a month-to-month tenancy with proper notice without stating a reason.
- Edwards appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord’s statutory power to terminate a month-to-month tenancy on 30 days’ notice permits eviction even when the tenant alleges the notice was issued in retaliation for good-faith reporting of housing-code violations.
2. Whether proof of retaliatory motive for code-related complaints constitutes a legal defense to an action for possession.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded.
- The court held that proof the landlord sought eviction in retaliation for the tenant’s good-faith reporting of housing-code violations constitutes a defense to the action for possession.
- The court treated the defense as an implied limitation on otherwise general termination rights, derived from the purposes of the housing regulations and related public policy.
- The court avoided deciding broader constitutional questions by resolving the case through statutory and regulatory construction.
- A dissent would have affirmed, reasoning that motive is irrelevant when a month-to-month tenancy is terminated with proper notice absent an express statutory limitation.

## Legal Principles

- Proof of retaliatory motive is a defense to eviction when the alleged retaliation is for a tenant’s good-faith reporting of housing-code violations.
- Housing regulations aimed at health and safety can imply limits on a landlord’s termination rights where enforcement of those regulations depends on tenant complaints.
- Courts may construe general termination statutes in harmony with related regulatory schemes, recognizing implied exceptions to prevent frustration of regulatory objectives.
- The tenant bears the burden to present evidence that the landlord’s motive for seeking possession was retaliatory and tied to protected code-reporting activity.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit recognized retaliatory eviction—when a landlord seeks possession to punish a tenant for good-faith housing-code complaints—as a defense in an eviction action, reasoning that allowing such retaliation would frustrate effective enforcement of housing standards.


Edwards v. Habib, 397 F.2d 687 (D.C. Cir. 1968)