## Facts

- The Town of Brookline adopted Article XXV, a bylaw addressing “unfair and unreasonable rental practices” amid a declared housing emergency and shortage of low- and moderate-income rental units.
- The bylaw created a seven-member Rent Review and Grievance Board composed of municipal officials and representatives of landlords, tenants, and the public.
- The board was authorized to receive complaints, review rent increases, study rent levels, and issue orders, including setting “fair and reasonable” rents and prohibiting landlords from charging more.
- Marshal House, Inc., a landlord subject to the bylaw, sought declaratory relief claiming Brookline lacked authority under the Massachusetts Constitution and home rule provisions to enact this form of rent control without specific state enabling legislation.
- The case proceeded in the Superior Court as a case stated; a judge issued an interlocutory decree granting a preliminary injunction limiting the board’s distribution of rent-information forms, and the matter was reported to the Supreme Judicial Court.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Massachusetts Home Rule Amendment (art. 89) and related law, a municipality may enact a bylaw regulating rents and landlord–tenant relations without specific legislative authorization.
2. Whether regulating rent levels is a regulation of a “civil relationship” permissible only if “incident to an exercise of an independent municipal power” under art. 89, § 7(5).

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court held the bylaw invalid because Brookline lacked home rule authority to adopt a rent-control scheme without express legislative authorization.
- The court concluded that fixing “fair and reasonable” rents and prohibiting higher rents directly regulates the landlord–tenant relationship rather than operating as an incidental measure tied to an independent municipal power.
- The court ordered entry of a final decree declaring Article XXV invalid, rendering the preliminary injunction immaterial in light of the complete invalidation of the bylaw.

## Legal Principles

- Under art. 89, § 7(5), municipal regulations of civil relationships are permitted only when they are incident to an independent municipal power; the civil-relationship regulation must be subordinate to a recognized municipal function.
- Direct regulation of landlord–tenant contractual rights by setting or limiting rent is a substantive regulation of a civil relationship and exceeds municipal home rule authority absent enabling legislation.
- General references to public health, safety, welfare, or a housing emergency do not, without more, convert rent control into an incidental exercise of an independent municipal police power.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Brookline’s rent review bylaw because rent control that fixes or limits rents directly regulates landlord–tenant relations and therefore requires explicit authorization from the state legislature, not merely municipal home rule power.


Marshal House, Inc. v. Rent Review & Grievance Bd. of Brookline, 357 Mass. 709, 260 N.E.2d 200 (1970)