Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Administrator of Veterans Affairs v. Valentine, 490 A.2d 1165 (1985)

Citation
Administrator of Veterans Affairs v. Valentine, 490 A.2d 1165 (1985)
Parent Document
Administrator of Veterans Affairs v. Valentine, 490 A.2d 1165 (1985)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1985-04-24

Other Sections in This Document (109)

Full Text

694 chars
The primary fallacy in [Simpson's] position is his contention that the statutes are in pari materia and that the term "tenant" is defined consistently throughout the D.C.Code. The distinction here is between a tenant at common law — one who holds or possesses lands by any kind of right or title — and a tenant under the renters' statute — one who stands in a contractual relationship with his landlord. See Surratt v. Real Estate Exchange, Inc., D.C.Mun.App., 76 A.2d 587, 588 (1950).... We conclude that the tenancy arising from mere possession is *1168 not that which is referred to in the rent control statute and reject [Simpson's] contentions to the contrary. Simpson, 396 A.2d at 214-15.