It is the court’s further view that the specificity of notice in rent nonpayment cases referred to in 24 CFR 450.4 (e) contemplates nonpayment cases where the nonpayment is made the basis for a holdover summary proceeding and is not applicable to the nonpayment proceeding at bar.
Nor are the respondents aided by 24 CFR 886.122 (b), (e) which is embodied verbatim in the lease and which reads as follows: “The Lessor shall not evict the Lessee unless the Lessor complies with the requirements of local law, if any, and of this provision. The Lessor shall give the Lessee a written notice of the proposed eviction, stating the grounds and advising the lessee that he has 10 days (or such greater number, if any, that may be required by local law) within which to respond to the Lessor.”
Since the provision mandates that the 10-day notice state the grounds for eviction, it is the view of this court that it was intended to apply only to a holdover proceeding. The clear purpose was that the tenant be apprised of the grounds for the proposed holdover proceeding inasmuch as such a proceeding, unlike a nonpayment proceeding, might be predicated on one or more of a multitude of grounds of which tenant might not otherwise be aware. In a nonpayment proceeding, however, the failure to pay rent is the only basis for the proceeding. The tenant is obviously aware of the reason for the proposed eviction and therefore no 10-day notice is required. The nonpayment proceeding affords the tenant ample opportunity to have his day in court where he could justify or deny the nonpayment.
In accordance with the above holdings, the motion is denied.