## Facts

- A mobile home park owner operated a 226-site park in a municipality with a rent control ordinance and a Rent Review Board.
- The ordinance allowed certain cost pass-throughs but required Board approval for rent increases based on capital improvements or landlord hardship.
- The owner made capital improvements and applied to the Board for (1) permission to shift heating costs to tenants, (2) a capital-improvement rent increase, and (3) a hardship surcharge.
- After a hearing, the Board granted limited relief, including allowing tenants to supply their own fuel and setting rent levels by lot size.
- Tenancies were periodic month-to-month, renewing on the first of each month.
- During litigation over rent levels and implementation, the owner served tenants (May 24) a copy of the Board-authorized increase and a notice to quit demanding payment of the higher rent or termination by June 27.
- After the trial court set a higher rent than the Board’s later authorization, the owner served tenants (June 10) a copy of the court order as an “amendment” to the earlier notice.
- Tenants paid during the dispute but asserted that future higher rent would not be owed absent a valid notice to quit under state landlord-tenant law.
- The Appellate Division concluded the increase was not effective because the May 24 notice to quit was invalid; the landlord appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord who obtains authorization for a rent increase from a municipal rent control board (or from a court reviewing that board) must serve tenants with a valid notice to quit before the increase becomes effective.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a landlord must serve a valid notice to quit for an authorized rent increase to become effective against existing periodic tenants.
- The Court treated municipal rent-control authorization as necessary to permit a higher rent, but insufficient to implement it within an ongoing landlord-tenant relationship.
- The Court agreed in substance with the conclusion that the landlord’s notices did not satisfy the notice-to-quit requirement for effectuating the higher rent.

## Legal Principles

- In a periodic tenancy, a landlord cannot unilaterally change a material term (including rent) during the tenancy period; the landlord must terminate the existing tenancy with proper notice to quit and offer continued occupancy at the new rent.
- The Anti-Eviction Act limits removal to statutorily defined “good cause” and presupposes that any demanded rent is effective under applicable notice and tenancy-termination rules.
- A municipal rent control ordinance may regulate the amount of rent and procedures for obtaining approval, but it does not displace state common-law and statutory requirements governing termination of periodic tenancies and service of notices to quit.
- Serving a rent board decision (or attempting to modify notice mid-period) is not a substitute for a timely, valid notice to quit that clearly ends the current tenancy and states the terms for continued occupancy.

## Conclusion

The Court held that board (or court) authorization to increase rent under a municipal rent control ordinance does not, by itself, change the rent owed by month-to-month tenants; the landlord must also serve a valid notice to quit terminating the existing tenancy and offering renewal at the increased rent.


Harry’s Village, Inc. v. Egg Harbor Township, 89 N.J. 576, 446 A.2d 862 (N.J. 1982)