however, Respondents did not initiate the holdover process until October of 2025. Petitioner
testified that he last paid rent in June 2025, which was the same month he was served with the
90-day notice to vacate, which commenced the holdover proceeding.
Judgment/Order/Decision
Although there are some discrepancies between the parties' testimony, there was clearly an
agreement whereby the Petitioner would help maintain the property in exchange for rent
reduction and/or an hourly wage from Respondents. Testimony from both parties revealed a list
of personal animosities in addition to the breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship.
Petitioner blamed Respondents and Respondents blamed Petitioner for issues such as the window
being screwed shut and/or the broken lock on the entrance door. Ultimately, it appears that the
arrangement between the parties and their relationship has irrevocably broken down and some of
the allegations against each other appear more personal and petty rather than of a professional
landlord/tenant nature.
This Court finds that the Respondents were successful in rebutting the presumption of
retaliation in seeking eviction. A finding of retaliation requires a clear and undeniable nexus
between a good-faith complaint and the retaliatory conduct. A complaint or call to Code
Enforcement does not itself trigger protection against eviction, that protection must be
determined by the nature of the complaint and the response of the landlord. Here, the complaints
made were not so severe as to warrant a breach of warranty of habitability. It was only after the
90-Day notice that Petitioner began withholding rent, and only after being served with the
holdover petition that Petitioner filed the 7D action.