## Facts

- Tenants leased apartments in the Clifton Terrace complex in Washington, D.C., under written residential leases.
- In April 1966, tenants withheld rent, alleging severe defects and numerous violations of District of Columbia Housing Regulations.
- The landlord filed separate summary actions for possession based on nonpayment of April rent.
- Tenants admitted nonpayment but sought to present extensive evidence of housing code violations and to assert those violations as a defense or as recoupment/setoff equal to the rent claimed.
- The trial court excluded the proffered housing-code evidence and entered judgment for the landlord, ordering possession.
- The local appellate court affirmed, reasoning that code compliance was not a contractual duty under the leases and that violations were not a defense to nonpayment in a summary possession action.

## Issues

1. Whether housing code violations arising during the term of a residential lease affect the tenant’s obligation to pay rent.
2. Whether a tenant may introduce evidence of housing code violations as a defense (or recoupment/setoff) in an action for possession based on nonpayment of rent.
3. Whether leases of covered urban dwelling units include an implied warranty of habitability measured by the jurisdiction’s housing regulations.

## Decision

- The court reversed and remanded.
- It held that an implied warranty of habitability is implied by law in leases of urban dwelling units covered by the District of Columbia Housing Regulations.
- The warranty is measured by the standards set out in the Housing Regulations.
- Breach of the implied warranty gives rise to ordinary contract remedies and may be asserted as a defense in an action for possession based on nonpayment of rent.
- The tenants were entitled to present evidence of housing code violations to determine the extent of any rent obligation.

## Legal Principles

- In covered residential leases, the landlord impliedly warrants that the premises will be maintained in compliance with applicable housing code standards for the lease term.
- The tenant’s duty to pay rent is dependent on the landlord’s performance of habitability obligations imposed by housing regulations, rather than being categorically independent as under older property-based rules.
- A tenant sued for possession for nonpayment may introduce evidence of housing code violations and seek contract-based relief, including defensive recoupment/setoff, based on breach of the implied warranty.
- Modern residential leases are construed using contract principles reflecting the purpose of habitation and the regulatory duties governing minimum housing conditions.

## Conclusion

The court recognized an implied warranty of habitability in covered urban residential leases, defined by housing regulations, and required that tenants be allowed to raise and prove code violations as a contract-based defense to eviction for nonpayment of rent.


Javins v. First Nat'l Realty Corp., 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1970)