316 A.2d 793 (Conn.Cir.Ct. 1973), CV 1-7211-36228, Todd v. May

Docket Nº:CV 1-7211-36228.
Citation:316 A.2d 793, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 731
Opinion Judge:HENEBRY, Judge.
Party Name:Nancy TODD v. James MAY.
Attorney:Willard Carter, Wilton, for plaintiff. Steven P. Hershey, Stamford, for defendant.
Judge Panel:HENEBRY,
Case Date:July 05, 1973
Court:Circuit Court of Connecticut

Page 793

316 A.2d 793 (Conn.Cir.Ct. 1973)

6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 731

Nancy TODD

v.

James MAY.

No. CV 1-7211-36228.

Circuit Court of Connecticut, First Circuit.

July 5, 1973

Willard Carter, Wilton, for plaintiff.

Steven P. Hershey, Stamford, for defendant.

HENEBRY, Judge.

The plaintiff brings this action of summary process on the ground of nonpayment of rent for premises allegedly occupied by the defendant in Stamford, Connecticut. Service of the summary process writ, which was dated November 1, 1972, was accomplished by abode service on November 3, 1972. The writ alleged a month-to-month oral leasing by the plaintiff to the defendant at $200 per month due and payable on the first day of [6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 732] each month and that the eviction action was based on nonpayment of rent. A copy of the notice to quit, dated October 17, 1972, and showing on the deputy sheriff's return thereon an

Page 794

abode service on October 19, 1972, was filed with the writ, although the notice to quit was neither incorporated by reference in the complaint nor attached as an exhibit to it. The copy of the notice to quit, contrary to the allegations in the writ, alleged the reason for the notice to quit as being a failure on the part of the defendant to pay a rental sum of $50 per week.

In addition to filing an answer in which all of the allegations of the complaint were denied, the defendant set up four special defenses as follows: (1) The premises contained numerous violations of the municipal and state housing and health code standards, and any leasing of the premises was, therefore, illegal. (2) The premises were untenantable and unfit for human habitation at all times relevant to the action. (3) Within six months prior to the institution of the action, the defendant in good faith attempted to remedy the state and local housing and health violations either by contacting the city officials who filed notices or orders in regard to the violations or by requesting the landlord to make repairs on the premises. (4) The complaint alleges a month-to-month tenancy by parol lease, while the actual tenancy was on a week-to-week basis, which latter tenancy could not be terminated for nonpayment of rent until nine days had elapsed, at which point in time the lease for nonpayment of rent had already expired by lapse of time and could not thereafter be otherwise terminated.

The court finds the following facts:

For some ten years prior to the institution of the action the plaintiff had owned. Among other properties, approximately five 'in row' tenement houses [6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 733] in Stamford, Connecticut. Each of the apartments had six rooms and a bath, with a front and a back porch and a large cellar. One of the apartments had been occupied by the defendant for some time prior to November 1, 1972. The rental for this apartment was $185 per month until it was raised to $200 per month sometime prior to November 1, 1972. The...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP