to the payments being [for] use and occupancy but has
not paid the $1600 legal fees or $50 late fee. He remains
in possession of the premises.’’
On April 9, 2024, the plaintiff commenced this sum-
mary process action seeking immediate possession or
occupancy of the premises. The plaintiff alleged that it
had served on the defendant a notice to quit on the
ground that he had failed to pay the rent when it was
due or within the grace period provided in the lease,
but, despite that notice, the defendant continued to
remain in possession of the premises and had refused
to vacate it.
On May 1, 2024, the defendant filed a notice with the
court indicating that, on that date, he had served upon
the plaintiff discovery requests for production and inter-
rogatories pursuant to Practice Book § 13-2.
On May 6, 2024, the defendant filed an answer and
special defenses to the plaintiff’s complaint. As to the
allegation that the defendant had failed to pay the full
rent when it was due, the defendant left the plaintiff
to its proof. By way of special defense, the defendant
alleged that he had cured his failure to pay the rent for
the premises on April 3, 2024, before the April 7, 2024
quit date, when he sent four money orders to the plain-
tiff in the amounts of $93 each for the months of January
through April, 2024. The defendant also alleged that the
defense of equitable nonforfeiture precluded eviction
in this case. In support of that defense, the defendant
alleged, inter alia, that his nonpayment of rent was
based on a rodent and cockroach infestation of the
premises, in addition to a failure by the plaintiff to
provide him with a key to his mailbox, despite having
requested one three times. He alleged that, if evicted,
he would lose his housing voucher and that ‘‘[t]he plain-
tiff’s choice to pursue this summary process action
against a disabled veteran with case management, in
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 5