Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Auger v. Tasea Investment Co., 676 A.2d 18 (1996)

Citation
Auger v. Tasea Investment Co., 676 A.2d 18 (1996)
Parent Document
Auger v. Tasea Investment Co., 676 A.2d 18 (1996)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1996-05-16

Other Sections in This Document (120)

Full Text

856 chars
Tasea nonetheless contends that "a landlord's right to raise the rent is not dependent on serving a notice to quit." Tasea, therefore, takes the paradoxical position that a notice to quit is required to terminate the tenant's right to possession of property but not required to terminate the other contractual provisions of the lease — including perhaps the most significant provision, the rent. Such a rule of law theoretically would allow a landlord unilaterally to terminate a month-to-month tenancy, without resort to judicial action for summary possession, by announcing a substantially higher rent on a moment's notice — without giving a valid notice to quit — and charging the tenant who chooses to leave under such circumstances a whopping premium for the period between the announced rent increase and the date the tenant finally manages to leave.