Jay Barber v. Dwayne Lewis (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a summary process action brought on November 9, 2010 by complaint seeking immediate possession of the premises based on Nonpayment of Rent and Lapse of Time. The defendant filed a special defense dated November 16, 2010 under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 47a-4a alleging no payment of rent is due because of the existing housing code violations and for retaliation due to his contacting the Housing Division for the City of Meriden.

The court has weighed all the evidence and assessed the credibility of the witnesses.   Based on the evidence presented, the court makes the following findings regarding the respective claims and defenses:

1. This is an oral agreement between the plaintiff owner and the defendant wherein the defendant agreed to pay a monthly rental fee for the letting of a residential 3rd floor apartment located at 115 Franklin Street, Meriden.

2. The defendant has not paid rent for September or October of 2010.

3. On October 15, 2010, the plaintiff served upon the defendant a Notice To Quit possession of the premises.

4. The defendant has attempted to remedy certain conditions concerning the habitability of the premises by filing complaints with the appropriate agency i.e. the Housing Division of the City of Meriden commencing in June 2010 and continuing through October 19, 2010.   Complaints included roach infestation, a broken window, loss of heat and bathroom repairs.   That on October 22, 2010, the Housing Inspector, William Mathers conducted a reinspection of the premises and ordered the landlord to make repairs to the bathroom and to exterminate the defendant's apartment for roaches.   There is no evidence that the landlord has corrected the problems.

5. This court finds credible the testimony of the defendant that the roach infestation was caused by another tenant but has spread to his apartment since June of 2010.

6. That this summary process action was commenced within six months after the tenant made complaint about conditions of the apartment and the landlord knew about complaints prior to serving the notice to quit possession.

7. The tenant has presented a prima facie case to a presumption of retaliatory action pursuant to § 47a-20 for the reasons stated above and the landlord has not presented countervailing evidence to rebut it.

Having considered the law and the equity, the court finds the defendant to have proven the special defenses as alleged and hereby enters judgment for the defendant.

BY THE COURT

Markle, J.

Markle, Denise D., J.