## Facts

- A landlord filed an unlawful detainer action seeking possession and back rent from a residential tenant.
- The tenant asserted the premises were uninhabitable and offered evidence including a city inspection report listing numerous housing code violations and a pending condemnation hearing.
- At a de novo trial in superior court, the tenant presented evidence of serious defects, including a collapsed bathroom ceiling, vermin infestation, lack of heat in multiple rooms, plumbing blockages, exposed and faulty wiring, and a dangerous stove installation.
- The landlord did not meaningfully dispute the existence of defects but argued they were not a defense to unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent.
- The superior court ruled the tenant’s remedies were limited to statutory “repair and deduct” provisions and entered judgment for the landlord (possession and back rent).
- The court of appeal denied writ relief, and the tenant obtained review in the state supreme court.

## Issues

1. Whether California law recognizes a common-law implied warranty of habitability in residential leases.
2. Whether a tenant may raise breach of the implied warranty of habitability as a defense in an unlawful detainer action for nonpayment of rent.
3. Whether statutory “repair and deduct” remedies preclude recognition or use of a broader common-law warranty of habitability.

## Decision

- The court held that an implied warranty of habitability is implied by law in California residential leases.
- The court held that a tenant may assert the landlord’s breach of that warranty as a defense in an unlawful detainer action based on nonpayment of rent.
- The court rejected the view that statutory “repair and deduct” provisions are the tenant’s exclusive remedy, treating them as supplemental to common-law rights.
- The court vacated the judgment for the landlord and remanded for fact-finding on habitability and the proper rent consequences (including potential reduction or offset).

## Legal Principles

- Residential leases include an implied warranty requiring the landlord to maintain premises in habitable condition during the tenancy.
- The tenant’s obligation to pay rent is dependent on the landlord’s performance of the implied warranty; a material breach can reduce or eliminate rent due for the period of uninhabitable conditions.
- Statutory repair remedies do not displace common-law tenant protections; limited statutory options do not bar judicial recognition of broader habitability-based defenses.
- In unlawful detainer for nonpayment, the trier of fact may consider evidence of habitability defects and determine the appropriate rent abatement or offset based on severity and duration.

## Conclusion

The court established that California residential tenancies carry an implied warranty of habitability, that statutory repair remedies are not exclusive, and that tenants may defend against eviction for nonpayment by proving a material breach of habitability and obtaining an appropriate rent reduction or offset.


Green v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. 3d 616, 517 P.2d 1168 (Cal. 1974)