Masszonia v. Washington

• Decision Date: 22 July 1970
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 1560-70.
• Parties: Anna MASSZONIA, Plaintiff, v. Walter E. WASHINGTON, individually and as Commissioner of the District of Columbia; William H. Brown, individually and as Water Registrar of the District of Columbia; Lyman C. Delle, individually and as President of ABC Realty Company, Inc.; Potomac Electric Power Company; and Washington Gas Light Company, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

315 F. Supp. 529

Anna MASSZONIA, Plaintiff, v. Walter E. WASHINGTON, individually and as Commissioner of the District of Columbia;

William H. Brown, individually and as Water Registrar of the District of Columbia;

Lyman C. Delle, individually and as President of ABC Realty Company, Inc.;

Potomac Electric Power Company;

and

Washington Gas Light Company, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 1560-70.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

July 22, 1970.

Stanley Sitnick, Marsha Quintana, Samuel B. Abbott, Neighborhood Legal Services Program, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Madison McCulloch, Asst. Corp. Counsel, for defendants Washington and Brown.

Jo V. Morgan, Jr., Whiteford, Hart, Carmody & Wilson, Henry F. Krautwurst, H. Edward Holtz, Washington, D. C., for Washington Gas Light Co.

Stephen A. Trimble, Richard W. Turner, Hamilton & Hamilton, George W. Warlick, Washington, D. C., for Potomac Electric Power Co.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GESELL, District Judge.

This motion for preliminary injunction is brought by a tenant living in a substandard apartment complex of about 165 units, located at 14th and Girard Streets, N.W., individually and on behalf of all other tenants in the complex. The owner of these apartment buildings was recently sued in the Court of General Sessions by these same tenants for failure to provide housing that meets minimum standards under the Housing Regulations of the District of Columbia. Mitchell v. ABC Realty Co., Inc., GS 3522-70. Since about that time, the owner has made no effort to collect rents, and has failed to honor the utility bills for water, gas and electricity. As a consequence, the tenants face an immediate termination of these essential utilities. They have come to this Court asking equitable relief directing that utility services be continued. The matter is before the Court on affidavits and the issues were fully briefed and argued.

The Court is without power to direct the gas and electrical utility companies to continue service without payment. Under the leases, the owner contracted to pay all utility bills for the apartment complex, and single water, gas, and electric meters were installed to measure use by all units. D.C. Code § 43-329 requires that utility service be provided only in accordance with the rates and regulations approved by the Public Service Commission, and the obligation of the utilities to terminate service for non-payment has been recognized as an integral and necessary concomitant of proper rate control. Lewis v. Potomac Electric Power Company, 62 App.D.C. 63, 64 F.2d 701 (1933). Both utilities have asked to be dismissed. They have asserted that they cannot and will not make any claim against the tenants, with whom they were not in contractual privity, covering any unpaid services which accrued or will accrue on or before July 31, the time within which the Court has specified that new arrangements for providing services, if any, must be made, whether under Court order or otherwise. Both companies have acted reasonably in the situation, conscious of their public responsibilities, and no purpose is served by holding them in this suit.

It has been suggested by the Corporation Counsel that it would be appropriate for the tenants, who have not been asked to pay rent for two months, to organize a committee which would enter into contracts with the utility companies for continuation of services. This approach, while superficially attractive, is not acceptable to the Court. The apartment units have different utility equipment, rent at different prices, and have varying numbers of occupants. Rents range from $65 to $138 per month, and differ for comparable layouts. There is no recognized formula for distributing the charges among the users, nor is there any assurance that the tenants themselves could work out an acceptable formula. The tenants contend that the owner's failure to provide adequate housing relieves them of any obligation to pay for any of the services, as may well be the case. See Housing Regulations of the District of Columbia, § 2902; Javins v. First National Realty Corp., 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C.Cir.1970); cf. Bell v. Tsintolas Realty Co., 430 F.2d 474 (D.C.Cir.1970). Considering all this, along with the fact that many of the tenants lead a marginal existence and changes of occupancy may well occur, there is no probability that a stable solution can be achieved by following this suggested course. Such a decree would be inappropriate in any event, for experience well teaches that unless a decree is amenable to clear and certain execution, it should rarely, if ever, be entered. The Court does not have the power to force the tenants to proceed in the manner suggested by Corporation Counsel. His suggestion is in essence a suggestion that the Court do nothing. Under the circumstances present here, the public interest cannot be served by inaction.

Thus, the litigation, at least at this stage, presents the novel question whether, under the circumstances here prevailing, the Court should direct the Mayor to provide free utility service to the tenants by enjoining any cut-off of the water, which is controlled by the city, and by requiring the District to contract for gas and electrical service pendente lite or until occupancy of the building is terminated.

At the outset, certain background information bearing on the equities is worth noting. As of May, 1970, the housing inspectors noted over 1,000 violations of the Housing Code on the premises in question, reflecting the general intolerable conditions that have existed for many years, unattended and unabated. As the affidavits indicate, dwelling units in the apartment complex leak, there is falling plaster, broken windows, inadequate locks, absence of shades and screens, filthy sinks and backed up bathroom plumbing, inadequate heating, insufficient hot water, holes in the walls, rats, roaches, etc. In addition, the owner's rental of these structures was apparently contrary to law, and the authorities, who were aware of the situation, tolerated non-compliance. The owner has rented the apartments since about 1961 without obtaining the certificates of occupancy required by § 8104 of the Zoning Regulations of the District of Columbia; for the past two years, he lacked the apartment house license required by § 3102 of the Housing Regulations. Only recently has the District given some indication that it may take action with respect to this situation which should have been corrected long ago.¹

There is nothing novel about this...