Bernstein v. Lime, 1266.
| Decision Date | 04 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 1266.,1266. |
| Citation | 91 A.2d 841 |
| Parties | BERNSTEIN et at v. LIME. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Edward A. Aaronson, Washington, D. C., with whom Mark P. Friedlander, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
This was an action for possession of housing accommodations brought on the ground that the tenancy had been terminated by the service of a 30-day notice to quit and that the premises were not subject to the District of Columbia Rent Control Act. The case was tried by jury, and from an adverse verdict and judgment plaintiffs bring this appeal.
At the trial, defendant having conceded the validity of the 30-day notice, plaintiffs attempted to prove that they were entitled to possession since the premises were no longer under rent control. Code 1951, Supp. I, § 45-1611(a) (3) expressly excluded from control any building used as a licensed rooming house, and plaintiffs proved that defendant for four years prior to the filing of this suit had applied for and obtained a license to operate a rooming house. On this showing plaintiffs rested their case.
Defendant testified to the general effect that while the premises were licensed as a rooming house its use was actually that of a tenement house,1 and therefore still under rent control. Defendant stated that she had turned the control of these rooms over to the occupants; that she did not furnish them with linens; nor did she make their beds or clean their rooms. She further testified that the occupants of these rooms had housekeeping privileges and hot plates and refrigerators.
At the conclusion of all the evidence both parties moved for a directed verdict, which motions were denied. The case was submitted to the jury under the following instructions:
The first and principal error alleged is that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that the plaintiffs must not only prove that it was a licensed rooming house but must also show that it was in fact used as a rooming house. To state the plaintiffs' contention in another way, if defendant had a license to operate a rooming house, that fact alone operated to decontrol the premises regardless of the manner in which the premises were used. We are of the opinion that the judge's interpretation of the law was correct.
In this connection it is well to remember that exemptions from the operation of the Rent Act are to be narrowly construed giving due regard to the plain meaning of statutory language and the intent of Congress. Nor must we forget the rule that the burden rests upon a landlord to prove that the building comes within the decontrolled exception.2
In June 1951 Congress extended the life of the Rent Act and revised it in several respects. In order to discontinue control over certain types of accommodations, Congress expressly excluded particular premises from the definition of "housing accommodations." Two of these exclusions read in part:
"but the term `housing accommodations' shall not include * * * (2) furnished nonhousekeeping...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TENANTS v. D.C. RENTAL HOUSING COM'N
...of the rent control statute are to be narrowly construed. Goodman, supra, at 1297; Revithes, supra; see also Bernstein v. Lime, 91 A.2d 841, 843 (D.C.Mun.App. 1952). We think that the provision for substantial rehabilitation in § 45-2524, which effectively permits a landlord to escape the p......
-
Price v. D.C. Rental Housing Com'n
...in light of the intent of the legislature and plain meaning of the legislation." Remin, supra, 471 A.2d at 279; see also Bernstein v. Lime, 91 A.2d 841, 843 (D.C. 1952). Moreover, the landlord has the burden of establishing that an exemption applies. Bernstein, supra, 91 A.2d at Under D.C.C......
-
Revithes v. Rental Housing Com'n, 84-1269.
...filed on June 25, 1980, and May 3, 1982. A landlord, of course, bears the burden of proving qualification for exemption. Bernstein v. Lime, 91 A.2d 841, 843 (D.C. 1952). "A landlord's mere assertion that a unit is not a rental unit contained in a claim of exemption will be insufficient" to ......
-
Remin v. D. of C. Rental Housing Com'n
...control laws should be narrowly construed in light of the intent of the legislature and plain meaning of the legislation. Bernstein v. Lime, 91 A.2d 841, 843 (D.C.1952). Moreover, the landlord has the burden of establishing that an exemption applies. Id. The Commission held that Remin had a......