Ownership of real property - Habitability and suitability

Learning Outcomes

This article explains habitability and suitability in landlord–tenant law for MBE purposes, including:

• When the implied warranty of habitability arises, how it differs from older common-law rules, and the modern majority/minority positions tested on the exam.
• What “habitable” means in practice, including code-based and common-law standards, and the types of defects that do and do not qualify.
• How habitability differs from suitability for a tenant’s particular purpose, especially in commercial versus residential leases.
• The relationship between habitability, the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and constructive eviction, and how each doctrine affects rent obligations.
• What notice a tenant must give, what opportunities to cure the landlord must receive, and how failure to allow access can bar relief.
• Tenant remedies for breach—rent withholding, repair and deduct, damages, rent abatement, and termination—and when each is properly invoked.
• Key landlord defenses, including tenant-caused conditions, denial of access, lack of notice, and arguments that defects are minor or aesthetic.
• How retaliatory eviction limits landlord responses to habitability complaints and creates presumptions in favor of tenants.
• How constructive eviction and habitability interact with negligence and personal-injury claims arising from unsafe premises.
• How these issues are likely to appear in MBE-style fact patterns, and strategies for spotting common traps and choosing among close answer choices.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand landlord–tenant duties regarding the condition of leased property, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• The scope and nature of the implied warranty of habitability in residential leases.
• Minimum standards of health and safety versus minor or aesthetic defects.
• The distinction between habitability (ordinary living) and suitability (special purpose).
• The covenant of quiet enjoyment and constructive eviction versus habitability remedies.
• Tenant prerequisites for relief: notice, reasonable time to repair, and continued possession.
• Available tenant remedies and how courts measure rent abatement and damages.
• Landlord defenses, including tenant misconduct and refusal to permit repairs.
• The basic idea of retaliatory eviction and its effect on landlord efforts to remove tenants.
• The (limited) role, if any, of habitability and suitability in commercial leases.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Which of the following best describes the implied warranty of habitability?
   1. It applies to all real property transactions.
   2. It requires landlords to provide premises fit for ordinary residential use.
   3. It guarantees suitability for any specialized tenant purpose.
   4. It applies only to commercial leases.
2. If a landlord breaches the implied warranty of habitability, a tenant may:
   1. Only terminate the lease.
   2. Withhold rent, repair and deduct, or seek damages.
   3. Only sue for punitive damages.
   4. Only seek specific performance.
3. The implied warranty of habitability:
   1. Can be waived in residential leases.
   2. Applies to both residential and commercial leases.
   3. Cannot be waived and applies only to residential leases.
   4. Requires the landlord to provide luxury amenities.

Introduction

Modern landlord–tenant law treats a residential lease less like a pure conveyance of land and more like a contract for safe, basic housing. Central to that shift is the implied warranty of habitability, which imposes a non-waivable duty on residential landlords to keep rented premises reasonably fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy.

At the same time, the law draws a sharp line between premises that are habitable for ordinary living and premises that are suitable for a tenant’s particular business or specialized use. MBE questions frequently test this distinction, often by giving you fact patterns in which a tenant wants to use a residential space in a non-residential way, or complains that a commercial space is bad for business but not physically unsafe.

Key Term: Implied Warranty of Habitability
A non-waivable term implied in every residential lease requiring the landlord to maintain the premises in a condition reasonably fit for ordinary human habitation, usually measured by housing, building, and health codes or comparable common-law standards.

Key Term: Habitability
The condition of residential premises being safe and sanitary enough for ordinary living, including basic structural soundness, functioning utilities, and freedom from conditions that seriously threaten health or safety.

Key Term: Suitability
The fitness of leased premises for a particular tenant’s specialized or commercial purpose (for example, operating a restaurant or photography studio). This is not guaranteed by the implied warranty of habitability and exists only if expressly or impliedly promised.

Key Term: Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
An implied term in every lease under which the landlord promises not to substantially interfere with the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises. A serious breach can lead to constructive eviction.

Key Term: Constructive Eviction
A doctrine under which the landlord’s wrongful conduct or failure to act substantially interferes with the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises, so that the tenant may treat the lease as terminated—provided the tenant timely vacates.

Key Term: Housing Code
A set of local ordinances that prescribe minimum health and safety standards for residential buildings; material violations typically establish a breach of the implied warranty of habitability.

Scope and Application of the Implied Warranty

The implied warranty of habitability:

• Applies only to residential leases (apartments, houses, residential rooms).
• Is implied in every residential lease—oral or written, short- or long-term.
• Cannot be waived by the tenant (any waiver clause is void as against public policy).
• Generally applies to the entire dwelling and, in multi-unit buildings, to common areas and essential services controlled by the landlord.
• Runs during the entire tenancy, not just at the outset.

It does not apply to:

• Commercial leases (unless a specific jurisdiction recognizes a separate implied warranty of suitability for commercial use, which is not the standard MBE assumption).
• Sales of real property (those are governed by different doctrines, such as caveat emptor, disclosure duties, or builder–vendor warranties).

On MBE questions, if you see a commercial tenant complaining that the space is not good for the tenant’s business but is physically safe and livable, do not apply the implied warranty of habitability.

Historical background: from “caveat lessee” to habitability

At common law, the lease was treated mainly as a conveyance of land. The landlord’s obligations were minimal: once possession was delivered, the tenant bore the risk of defects unless the landlord expressly promised repairs. This “caveat lessee” regime made sense for farm leases, where tenants often knew more about the land than landlords.

Modern urban housing changed that. Tenants typically rent finished dwellings, cannot easily inspect hidden systems (plumbing, wiring), and are heavily dependent on landlord-controlled services (heat, elevators, security). Courts and legislatures responded by:

• Imposing a covenant of quiet enjoyment and allowing constructive eviction.
• Recognizing the implied warranty of habitability, treating residential leases as contracts for safe housing, not bare land.

On the MBE, assume the modern, majority approach: the warranty exists and can be invoked as a defense or as the basis for tenant claims.

Minimum Standards: What Counts as “Habitable”

The warranty requires that the landlord provide and maintain premises that:

• Comply with applicable housing, building, and health codes that materially affect health and safety; and
• If no relevant code exists, are reasonably suitable for human habitation under common-law standards.

Material code violations are often treated as prima facie evidence of a breach. If a local housing inspector cites a landlord for lack of heat, dangerous wiring, or unsanitary conditions, that usually satisfies the tenant’s burden to show a habitability problem.

Habitability focuses on serious defects, not trivial imperfections or purely cosmetic issues. Typical breaches include:

• No heat in winter or no reasonable means of heating.
• Lack of potable running water or functioning plumbing (toilet, sink, bath).
• Dangerous electrical conditions (exposed wiring, frequent sparking, fire hazards).
• Significant roof leaks, collapsing ceilings, or structurally unsound floors or stairs.
• Infestations of rats, roaches, or other vermin where the landlord is responsible.
• Serious mold or persistent sewage backups affecting health.
• Broken exterior doors or windows that render the premises seriously unsafe or insecure.
• Broken or unsafe common-area stairs, halls, or lighting in a multi-unit building.

By contrast, the following typically do not, standing alone, rise to a habitability breach:

• Peeling paint on interior walls (absent lead-paint or other health hazards).
• Stained carpets, worn linoleum, unattractive décor, or cracked tiles.
• Minor code violations that do not materially affect health or safety.
• A single mouse sighting where the landlord responds promptly and reasonably.

Also remember that several moderate problems can combine into a serious habitability issue even if each alone might be borderline. For example, persistent leaks, mold growth, and sporadic heat loss together are likely enough, especially if the landlord ignores repeated complaints.

For exam purposes, think “substantial health or safety risk, not minor inconvenience.”

Habitability vs. Suitability for a Particular Purpose

The implied warranty of habitability protects a tenant’s right to basic, safe living conditions, not the tenant’s preferred use of the space. That is where the concept of suitability comes in.

Suppose a tenant rents an apartment to run a high-powered recording studio; the outlets are safe and adequate for normal residential use but cannot support the studio’s specialized equipment. The landlord has likely not breached habitability. The premises are habitable for ordinary living even if they are unsuitable for the tenant’s business.

When suitability matters:

• If the landlord expressly promises that the premises are appropriate for a particular use (for example, “this space is fully compliant for a commercial kitchen”), failure of that promise may be a breach of contract or express warranty, not a violation of the implied warranty of habitability.
• Some jurisdictions recognize an implied warranty of suitability in commercial leases, but the MBE focuses primarily on residential habitability.

Key Term: Implied Warranty of Suitability
In a minority of jurisdictions, an implied promise in commercial leases that the premises are suitable for their intended commercial use at the outset of the lease, usually limited to latent defects and essential building systems.

Suitability issues on the MBE:

• If the tenant is commercial, and the complaint is “bad for business” but not “unsafe for people,” analyze under contract (express warranties, misrepresentation, frustration of purpose), not habitability.
• If the facts mention a jurisdiction that recognizes an implied warranty of suitability, apply that doctrine narrowly: it typically covers serious latent defects existing at the start of the lease, not minor inconveniences or problems the tenant could readily discover.

Relationship to Quiet Enjoyment and Constructive Eviction

The implied warranty of habitability overlaps with, but is distinct from, the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the doctrine of constructive eviction.

The covenant of quiet enjoyment is breached when the landlord’s acts or omissions substantially interfere with the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises. Serious habitability defects often qualify, but other interferences can also suffice:

• Repeated, unjustified entry into the unit.
• Failure to control other tenants’ serious nuisances after notice.
• Cutting off essential services (water, electricity) without justification.

Constructive eviction is a remedy for a serious breach of quiet enjoyment. For constructive eviction, the tenant must:

• Give the landlord notice and a reasonable time to cure.
• The landlord must fail to cure.
• The tenant must vacate all or substantially all of the premises within a reasonable time.

If those steps are satisfied, the tenant can treat the lease as terminated, stop paying rent, and sue for damages.

Habitability and constructive eviction differ in key ways:

• Under constructive eviction, the tenant must move out; otherwise the tenant is deemed to have accepted the conditions.
• Under the implied warranty of habitability, the tenant can remain in possession and seek remedies such as rent abatement, repairs, or damages.

So, on the MBE:

• If the tenant remains in possession and sues (or raises a defense) for reduced rent, think habitability.
• If the tenant moves out due to unlivable conditions, think both constructive eviction and habitability. Habitability can support money damages; constructive eviction supports lease termination and defense to future rent claims.

Also distinguish actual eviction:

• If the landlord physically excludes the tenant from part or all of the premises (for example, changing locks or blocking access), rent may be reduced or excused without needing habitability or constructive eviction analysis.

Tenant Prerequisites: Notice and Opportunity to Cure

A landlord is generally not liable for breach of the implied warranty of habitability unless:

• The landlord has notice of the defect; and
• The landlord is given a reasonable opportunity to repair or remedy the condition and fails to do so.

Notice can be:

• Actual notice: the tenant complains to the landlord or the landlord’s agent (often by phone, email, or written letter).
• Constructive notice: conditions are obvious or long-standing, or public authorities have cited the building.

On exam facts, look for:

• Tenants sending written complaints.
• Inspection reports or violation notices from a housing authority.
• Landlords visiting the premises and seeing the problem firsthand.

“Reasonable time to repair” is context-dependent:

• No heat in winter or a gas leak calls for immediate action.
• A broken cabinet door can reasonably take longer.

Tenants typically must:

• Notify the landlord in a reasonable manner; written notice is safest but oral notice often suffices.
• Allow reasonable access for inspections and repairs (often required by lease and statutes).
• Follow any basic statutory procedures (such as giving a second notice before repair-and-deduct), where stated.

Failure by the tenant to permit access can be a complete defense to a habitability claim. A landlord cannot be in breach for failing to repair a problem the tenant blocks the landlord from seeing or fixing.

Tenant Remedies for Breach

Once the landlord has breached the implied warranty of habitability and failed to cure after notice and a reasonable time, several remedies are available.

Key Term: Rent Withholding
A remedy in which the tenant stops paying some or all rent until the landlord corrects habitability violations. Many jurisdictions require tenants to pay withheld amounts into court or an escrow account.

Key Term: Repair and Deduct
A remedy allowing the tenant to make necessary repairs and deduct the reasonable cost from future rent, subject to statutory caps and procedural requirements.

Common remedies include:

• Rent withholding:
  • The tenant may withhold all or part of the rent until the landlord cures the defect.
  • Many jurisdictions require the tenant to pay withheld rent into a court registry or escrow to avoid being treated as a non-paying tenant.
  • On the MBE, if the tenant simply pockets the money without following required procedures, the landlord may successfully evict for nonpayment despite the defects.
• Repair and deduct:
  • The tenant hires a repair professional and deducts reasonable costs from future rent.
  • Often limited by statute (for example, only once or twice per year, or up to a percentage of monthly rent).
  • The tenant must still give the landlord notice and a chance to repair before invoking this remedy.
• Rent abatement / damages:
  • Courts often measure abatement by the difference between the value of the premises as warranted (habitable) and the value as is.
  • Example: If monthly rent is $1,000 but conditions reduce the unit’s value by 40$400 abatement per month during the breach.
  • Tenants may also recover consequential damages (such as hotel costs, medical expenses, or damaged personal property) if reasonably foreseeable.
  • Some jurisdictions treat severe code violations as making the lease “illegal,” entitling the tenant to a substantial rent reduction, sometimes to zero, for the affected period.
• Constructive eviction (termination):
  • If conditions are so bad that no reasonable person would remain, tenant may move out, stop paying rent, and claim constructive eviction.
  • Requires prompt vacating after the landlord fails to cure, otherwise the tenant may be deemed to have accepted the conditions.
• Specific performance or injunctive relief:
  • Some courts may order the landlord to make repairs, especially where monetary damages alone would be inadequate or where statutes authorize repair orders.

Tenants must be careful with self-help. Beyond limited repair-and-deduct rights provided by statute, tenants generally may not:

• Make major alterations without following statutory procedures.
• Withhold rent indefinitely without escrow.
• Engage in dangerous or unlawful actions to “fix” the problem themselves.

Courts strongly prefer structured, legal remedies over unilateral measures that create safety or legal risks.

Landlord Defenses

Landlords can raise several defenses to habitability claims.

• Tenant-caused conditions:
  • If the uninhabitable condition results from the tenant’s misuse, waste, or failure to maintain reasonable cleanliness, the landlord usually has no liability.
  • Examples: grease fires from tenant’s negligence, tenant’s broken windows never reported, overflowing bathtub left running.
  • The landlord may even have a claim for damages against the tenant.
• Refusal of access:
  • If the tenant denies entry at reasonable times for inspection or repair, the landlord can argue that any breach is excused.
  • Look for facts where landlord schedules repairs and the tenant repeatedly refuses or misses appointments.
• No notice / no opportunity to cure:
  • A landlord who lacked notice and had no reasonable chance to fix the problem can argue that the warranty was not yet breached.
  • But if the condition is obvious or longstanding, a court may infer constructive notice.
• De minimis or non-habitability defects:
  • Landlords can argue that the condition is minor, aesthetic, or not sufficiently related to health or safety.
  • For instance, a noisy refrigerator or worn carpet alone is unlikely to be a habitability breach.
• Tenant’s failure to vacate (constructive eviction claims):
  • For constructive eviction, if the tenant remains in possession for an extended period after the landlord’s failure to cure, the landlord can argue that the interference was not severe enough to justify termination.
  • This does not defeat habitability remedies if the tenant otherwise follows the rules; a tenant can both remain and seek rent abatement.

Landlords can also defend by showing they exercised reasonable care and that a sudden event (for example, a city-wide blackout, natural disaster, or third-party criminal act) temporarily caused the condition, provided they respond reasonably once aware.

Retaliatory Eviction

Most jurisdictions, by statute or common law, limit a landlord’s ability to evict or penalize a tenant who asserts habitability rights or engages in other protected activities.

Key Term: Retaliatory Eviction
A landlord’s adverse action (such as eviction, rent increase, or service reduction) taken in response to the tenant’s good-faith complaint about housing conditions or exercise of legal rights. Retaliatory actions are typically prohibited or presumptively invalid.

Common patterns:

• Shortly after the tenant:
  • Reports code violations to authorities,
  • Joins a tenants’ association,
  • Demands repairs, or
  • Asserts habitability defenses in court,
• The landlord:
  • Serves a termination notice,
  • Raises rent sharply, or
  • Cuts essential services.

Many statutes create a presumption of retaliation if the landlord acts adversely within a specified time (often several months) after the tenant’s protected activity. The landlord then bears the burden to show a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason (for example, the landlord is taking the unit off the rental market or needs the unit for a close family member).

Points for the MBE:

• The retaliation doctrine generally protects lawful, good-faith complaints or organizing activity, not bad-faith or frivolous claims.
• Tenants can use retaliatory eviction as a defense in summary eviction proceedings and sometimes as the basis for affirmative damages claims.
• The doctrine does not usually prevent a landlord from evicting for nonpayment of rent that is unrelated to habitability, provided the nonpayment is not the tenant’s good-faith withholding based on serious defects.

Habitability and Commercial Tenancies: Suitability

Most MBE questions assume the majority rule that there is no implied warranty of habitability or suitability in commercial leases. Commercial tenants are generally expected to:

• Inspect the premises before leasing.
• Negotiate express covenants regarding build-out, compliance with codes, or suitability for particular uses.
• Rely on the covenant of quiet enjoyment and contract principles, not an implied habitability doctrine.

That said, some jurisdictions recognize an implied warranty of suitability in commercial leases, requiring landlords to provide premises suitable for their intended commercial purpose at the outset. Even there, the doctrine is:

• Narrow: it usually covers latent defects in essential building systems (structure, plumbing, electrical) that make the space unusable for the specified commercial purpose.
• Limited to the beginning of the lease, not later deterioration.
• Often subject to waiver or explicit disclaimer in sophisticated commercial leases.

For MBE purposes, unless facts clearly indicate such a jurisdiction, treat suitability issues in commercial leases as matters of express contract, misrepresentation, or perhaps frustration of purpose—not as habitability questions.

Habitability, Negligence, and Personal Injuries

Habitability disputes often arise in the context of rent and possession, but defective conditions can also cause personal injuries. Modern law generally imposes a duty of reasonable care on residential landlords for:

• Common areas under the landlord’s control.
• Latent defects known to the landlord and not disclosed to the tenant.
• Repairs undertaken by the landlord.
• Areas open to the public (for example, lobbies, stairwells, laundry rooms).

A tenant injured by an unsafe condition (for example, a broken stair or falling ceiling) can usually sue in tort for negligence, in addition to or instead of contract-based habitability claims. The standard of proof, defenses, and damages will follow ordinary negligence rules.

On the MBE, be ready to separate:

• Contract-based issues: rent obligations, withholding, abatement, constructive eviction.
• Tort-based issues: personal injury, premises liability, duty of care in common areas.

Worked Example 1.1

A tenant rents an apartment. The heating system fails in January, and the landlord refuses to repair it after notice. The tenant remains in the apartment, pays for space heaters, and sues for damages.

Answer:
The landlord has breached the implied warranty of habitability by failing to provide heat during winter, a basic health and safety requirement. The tenant may recover damages for the cost of alternative heating and for the reduced rental value of the premises during the period without heat, typically through a rent abatement calculation. The tenant is not required to move out to obtain relief.

Worked Example 1.2

A tenant leases a residential unit to use as a photography studio. The unit lacks sufficient electrical capacity for the tenant’s equipment, but is otherwise safe and livable. The tenant sues for breach of habitability.

Answer:
The implied warranty of habitability does not guarantee suitability for specialized uses. Because the premises are fit for ordinary residential living, there is no breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Any claim would need to be based on an express promise by the landlord regarding the electrical capacity or suitability for a photo studio, not on habitability.

Worked Example 1.3

A tenant in a residential building reports a serious cockroach infestation affecting the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord is notified but does nothing for three months. The tenant withholds half the rent and places it into a court-approved escrow. The landlord sues for nonpayment.

Answer:
A serious vermin infestation is a health-related defect that can breach the implied warranty of habitability if the landlord, after notice, fails to act within a reasonable time. Because the tenant gave notice, allowed an opportunity to cure, and withheld rent by paying into escrow, the tenant can assert breach of the implied warranty of habitability as a defense and seek rent abatement. The landlord’s claim for full rent is unlikely to succeed.

Worked Example 1.4

A tenant’s ceiling leaks during heavy rain, causing occasional dripping in the living room. The tenant complains once, the landlord promises to “look into it,” but nothing happens. After two months, the tenant stops paying all rent, remains in the unit, and is later sued for nonpayment.

Answer:
Intermittent leaks can become a habitability problem if they are severe or persistent, but here the facts suggest minor inconvenience rather than a serious health or safety risk. A total rent withholding is likely excessive. The tenant may be entitled to a small abatement if the condition substantially interferes with use, but is unlikely to be completely excused from rent. On these facts, the landlord will probably recover most of the rent, and the tenant’s blanket habitability defense is weak.

Worked Example 1.5

A tenant’s apartment has severe mold, no working bathroom, and frequent sewage backups. After repeated written notice over two months and no meaningful response, the tenant moves out and stops paying rent. The landlord sues for rent for the remaining six months on the lease.

Answer:
The conditions described plainly breach the implied warranty of habitability and substantially interfere with the tenant’s use and enjoyment. The tenant gave notice, waited a reasonable time, and then vacated. The tenant can claim constructive eviction and will be excused from paying rent after moving out. The tenant may also obtain damages for costs of relocation and possibly for property damage or health-related expenses caused by the conditions.

Worked Example 1.6

A commercial tenant leases a storefront to operate a restaurant. The tenant later discovers that the kitchen’s ventilation is inadequate to obtain the required health permit, although the premises are otherwise safe. The jurisdiction follows the majority rule and does not recognize a commercial implied warranty of suitability. The lease contains no promises about compliance with restaurant codes. The tenant stops paying rent and claims breach of habitability.

Answer:
The implied warranty of habitability applies only to residential leases, not commercial leases. The space is physically safe and usable; the problem is suitability for a restaurant business. In the absence of an express covenant or an implied warranty of suitability (which this jurisdiction does not recognize), there is no breach of habitability. The tenant remains obligated to pay rent and may be liable for breach of the lease.

Worked Example 1.7

A tenant complains to the city housing inspector about lack of heat and unsafe wiring. The inspector cites the landlord for serious code violations. Two weeks later, the landlord serves the tenant with a notice of nonrenewal and a large rent increase, citing “market conditions.” The tenant claims retaliatory eviction.

Answer:
The close timing between the tenant’s good-faith complaint and the landlord’s adverse actions supports a presumption of retaliation under most statutes. The landlord will need to show a genuine, non-retaliatory reason, such as a building-wide market-rate adjustment not targeted at the complaining tenant. Absent such proof, the tenant will likely have a valid defense to nonrenewal or the rent increase as retaliatory.

Exam Warning

On the MBE, do not confuse:

• The implied warranty of habitability (non-waivable, residential, basic living conditions) with
• The fitness or suitability of premises for a tenant’s particular business or specialized use.

If the property is safe and livable for ordinary residential purposes, lack of suitability for a studio, restaurant, or other specialized use is not a habitability breach unless the landlord specifically agreed to provide premises for that use.

Also distinguish between habitability remedies (which can be invoked while staying in possession) and constructive eviction (which requires the tenant to leave). Many answer choices will incorrectly mix these doctrines; be careful to tie the tenant’s actions (stay or leave) to the proper remedy.

Revision Tip

Always start by identifying (1) residential vs. commercial lease and (2) whether the defect implicates health and safety. Only if the lease is residential and the condition is serious should you analyze the implied warranty of habitability. Then ask:

• Did the tenant give notice and a reasonable opportunity to repair?
• Did the tenant allow access?
• Did the tenant choose the correct remedy (withholding, repair-and-deduct, abatement, or moving out)?
• Is there evidence of retaliation if the landlord responds with eviction or a sharp rent increase?

A systematic approach will help you avoid common traps in MBE fact patterns.

Summary

The implied warranty of habitability transformed residential leases from “take it as you find it” arrangements into contracts for safe, basic housing. It:

• Applies only to residential leases and cannot be waived.
• Requires landlords to maintain premises in a condition fit for ordinary human habitation, usually measured by housing codes and common-law standards of health and safety.
• Does not guarantee suitability for a tenant’s particular business or specialized purpose.
• Operates alongside, but is distinct from, the covenant of quiet enjoyment and constructive eviction.
• Allows tenants, after notice and opportunity to cure, to withhold rent, repair and deduct, seek rent abatement and damages, or, if conditions are extreme and the tenant vacates, claim constructive eviction.
• Gives tenants defenses against retaliatory eviction when they invoke their rights.
• Allows landlords to defend by showing tenant-caused conditions, lack of notice, denial of access, or trivial defects.
• Leaves commercial tenants largely to their express lease terms and general contract principles.

Understanding where habitability ends and suitability begins—and how tenant remedies must be properly invoked—is essential for handling MBE landlord–tenant questions.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The implied warranty of habitability is implied in every residential lease and is non-waivable.
• Habitability concerns basic health and safety; minor or cosmetic defects are not enough, though multiple smaller problems can combine into a serious breach.
• Suitability for a specialized or commercial purpose is not covered by the habitability warranty.
• The covenant of quiet enjoyment and constructive eviction are distinct but related doctrines; constructive eviction requires the tenant to vacate.
• Tenants must give notice and allow a reasonable time for repair before seeking habitability remedies.
• Tenant remedies include rent withholding (often via escrow), repair and deduct, damages, and, in severe cases, moving out and claiming constructive eviction.
• Landlords can defend by showing tenant-caused defects, refusal of access, lack of notice, or non-serious conditions.
• Retaliatory eviction in response to good-faith complaints about conditions is generally prohibited or presumptively invalid.
• Commercial tenants typically have no implied warranty of habitability or suitability on the MBE; their protection comes from express lease terms and general contract doctrines.
• Habitability problems can also support negligence claims where tenants or guests are physically injured by unsafe conditions.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Implied Warranty of Habitability
• Habitability
• Suitability
• Implied Warranty of Suitability
• Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
• Constructive Eviction
• Housing Code
• Rent Withholding
• Repair and Deduct
• Retaliatory Eviction