Implied Warranty Of Habitability
Hi. I have a tenant who is month to month. Last month he told me that he found drug paraphanelia which belonged to his wife. This month I didn't get the rent (which was due on the first) until the 18th. I had to give them a three day notice to get the rent. After that I decided I wanted to terminate their tenancy and gave them a thirty day notice the next day. Two days later I received a letter from the tenant saying that the house is uninhabitable and listed a bunch of reasons why, most of which I had no prior knowledge of. I proceeded to inspect the house right away and have been making necessary repairs. If the eviction goes to a court hearing, will the tenants still be able to stay because according to them I violated the implied warranty of habitabilty? I had no prior knowlede of most of the defects and the tenant has been there for six months and has failed to make me aware of most of them.
The tenant might conceivably use uninhability as a reason to break the lease and move out. He might even, in some jurisdictions, have a right to set off some portion of his rent to represent the reduction in value of the premises due to the undone repair (ususally after he has done some paperwork to prove he has given you notice and you have failed to make the repairs in question).
He is not going to be able to say that these unresolved repair items give him the right to live in the premises for free. Eviction judges hear this one all the time. The answer, "well if you are telling me the house is uninhabitable I'm going to do you a favor-- order you to move out."
Unless the needed repair concerns health or safety I wouldn't make them until after the eviction.