The plaintiff landlords sought to regain possession of certain real property
from the defendant tenants on the ground of nonpayment of rent. The
parties had executed a commercial lease for the property. The property
previously had been used as an automobile sales and repair facility, but
the defendants intended to operate a retail rug gallery and a restaurant
on the premises. The defendants started making monthly rent payments
but stopped approximately five months later. At that time, the defendants
had not completed their planned renovations to the premises and had not
obtained the certificates of occupancy required to open the businesses.
Meanwhile, without informing the defendants, the plaintiffs had been
remediating the property of certain environmental contamination in
accordance with a stipulated judgment with the Department of Energy
and Environmental Protection. After the defendants failed to pay rent
for three consecutive months, the plaintiffs served them with a notice
to quit, and, when the defendants failed to vacate the premises, the
plaintiffs commenced this summary process action. The defendants
asserted several special defenses, including equitable nonforfeiture. At
trial, two of the defendants testified that the defendants had stopped
paying rent because it was the only way they could stay in business
and to draw the plaintiffs’ attention to their difficulties. The trial court
rendered judgment of possession for the plaintiffs, concluding, inter
alia, that the equitable nonforfeiture defense did not apply because the
defendants had intentionally breached the lease. Specifically, the court
rejected the defendants’ claims that they had a good faith intent to
comply with, and a good faith dispute over the meaning of, the lease. The
court found that the defendants’ alleged concerns about environmental
contamination, which the defendants claimed justified their withholding
of rent, were pretextual, and that the defendants’ nonpayment actually
was motivated by the costs and difficulties arising from the delay in
renovating and occupying the premises. The Appellate Court affirmed
the trial court’s judgment, and the defendants, on the granting of certifi-
cation, appealed to this court. Held that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in rejecting the defendant’s equitable nonforfeiture
defense, and, accordingly, the Appellate Court properly affirmed the
trial court’s judgment; because the defendants intentionally withheld
rent on pretextual grounds and in the absence of any good faith dispute
over the terms of the lease, it was within the trial court’s equitable
discretion to determine that the defendants acted wilfully in not paying
rent and to deny them equitable relief from forfeiture of the premises.
Submitted on briefs May 8—officially released September 30, 2020** Procedural History