Opinion
No. HDSP-128472
January 5, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff, Carlos Valentin, seeks immediate possession of the premises occupied by Yelena Matrosua, Chad Lopez, Rosa Lopez, and Marcos Tirado for nonpayment of rent.
On or about February 1, 2004 the plaintiff, as lessor, and the defendants, entered into an oral month to month lease for the premises known as, 69 Allen Place, First Floor, Hartford, Connecticut. The parties agreed to a monthly rent of $500.00, due on the first day of the month. The defendants failed to pay the February 2004 rent. On March 5, 2004 the plaintiff caused a notice to quit possession to be served on the defendant to vacate the premises on or before March 12, 2004. The time given on the notice to quit possession has passed and the defendants remain in possession.
The defendant, Yelena Matrosua, appeared through counsel and filed special defenses. Matrosua alleges that no rent was due because the plaintiff failed to comply with his obligations to keep the premises in good condition. Further, the defendant alleges that when the premises were rented, the plaintiff failed to inform her that the common area lights were on the defendant's meter. The defendant alleges that the plaintiff is liable to the defendant for the common area electric bills in an amount greater or equal to any rent that may be due for February 2004. Finally, the defendant alleges that she was not served with a true copy of the writ, summons, and complaint; in that, the notice to quit filed with the court and the notice to quit attached to the defendant's copy of the writ, summons, and complaint are materially different.
The defendant's third defense was the subject of a motion to dismiss, filed by the defendant. In her motion to dismiss, the defendant asserted the same reasons as those reasons in her third defense. The motion to dismiss was denied after a hearing. The notice to quit possession clearly indicates that the termination date is March 12, 2004.
The defendant claims that the common area electric charges for fixtures and plugs were connected to the defendant's meter. The defendant failed to submit sufficient evidence to meet her burden of proving this defense. Quarae whether this is a proper defense because this is a summary process action limited to the issue of possession for the demised premises.
In her first special defense, the defendant asserts that the condition of the demised premises excused her from paying rent. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 47a-7 defines landlord's responsibilities: "(a) A landlord shall . . . (2) make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition, except where the premises are intentionally rendered unfit or uninhabitable by the tenant in which case such duty shall be the responsibility of the tenant . . ."
The defendant introduced various photographs regarding the condition of the demised premises. They show an apartment in need of some repairs. The premises were inspected on March 9, 2004 at the request of the defendant. The Hartford housing inspector, Warren Huertas, testified that there were electrical wires exposed in the ceiling and wall of the apartment and that there was a defective electrical wall fixture. Further, the inspector found that there were cracks and holes in the wall, a windowpane was broken, the front door knob was in disrepair and that the smoke detectors were inoperative. In addition, the inspector found evidence of rats, mice and roaches.
Huertas testified that he explained to the plaintiff the conditions that needed to be corrected in the premises. Then, Huertas issued a letter to the plaintiff that listed all of the conditions that required repairs or correction.
The defendant testified that these conditions existed prior to and on the day that the plaintiff issued the notice to quit possession. The plaintiff testified that, in December 2003, she had made complaints about some of the conditions in the demised premises. The Hartford housing inspector, Warren Huertas, verified the prior complaint, but testified that the inspection was never documented in the records of their office. The defendant testified that the plaintiff was aware of the condition of the premises.
To ensure that the landlord's duties are performed, General Statutes 47a-4a provides that "[a] rental agreement shall not permit the receipt of rent for any period during which the landlord has failed to comply with subsection (a) of section 47a-7." Generally, a tenant claiming the right to withhold rent must "show that the landlord's failure to comply with 47a-7(a) materially affects his safety . . . or has rendered the premises uninhabitable." Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn.App. 444, 450 (1988).
The plaintiff testified that he had rented the demised premises to Rosa Lopez and Marco Tirado in 2001. For a while, he resided in the demised premises until he moved upstairs to the second floor apartment. The demised premises were in "mint" condition at the time that he leased them to Rosa Lopez and Tirado. Further, the plaintiff testified that Rosa Lopez and Tirado had agreed to make repairs in the demised premises in exchange for a lower rent.
After considering all of the evidence, the defendant has failed to prove that the condition of the demised premises "materially affected" her safety or that the condition of the demised premises rendered the premises "uninhabitable." The defendant was not excused from paying the rent due for February 2004. The defendant could have deposited the rent with the housing court and require the plaintiff to repair the premises pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 47a-14h, which provides:
Sec. 47a-14h. Action by individual tenant to enforce landlord's responsibilities. Payment of rent into court. (a) Any tenant who claims that his landlord has failed to perform his legal duties, as required by section 47a-7 or subdivisions (1) to (13), inclusive, of subsection (a) of section 21-82, may institute an action in the superior court having jurisdiction over housing matters in the judicial district in which he resides to obtain the relief authorized by this section and sections 47a-20 and 47a-68.
The credible testimony proves that the premises were in good condition when the defendant took possession of the premises. The defendants were given a reduced rent in exchange for assuming responsibility for some of the repairs required in the premises. However, despite the rent reduction, it appears that Section 47a-7 requires the plaintiff to repair and correct all of the items listed in Huertas' report. Nothing is more elementary than the principle that the trier is the final judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be accorded to their testimony. Savings Bank of New London v. Santaniello, 130 Conn. 206, 213 (1943).
The plaintiff, if he has not already done so, shall within 30 days from today's opinion, make all of the repairs required in Huertas' report. The electrical repairs shall be completed by a competent licensed individual or company. If the defendant vacates the premises, the plaintiff is prohibited from leasing the premises to another tenant until he obtains a certificate of apartment occupancy from the City of Hartford.
Judgment may enter for the immediate possession of the premises to the plaintiff.
BY THE COURT:
Angelo L. dos Santos, Judge