Section 1942

Citation: Section 1942
Parent Document: Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2003-08-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2585536/drouet-v-superior-court/ ↗

Full Text

1,988 chars

"Section 1942.5 is a remedial statute aimed at protecting tenants from certain types of abuses. It is to be `liberally construed to effect its objectives and to suppress, not encourage, the mischief at which it was directed. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Barela v. Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d 244, 251, 178 Cal.Rptr. 618, 636 P.2d 582.) In Schweiger v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.3d 507, 513, 90 Cal.Rptr. 729, 476 P.2d 97, we quoted at length the "persuasive reasoning" in Edwards v. Habib (D.C.Cir. 1968) 397 F.2d 687, that "`while the landlord may evict for any legal reason or for no reason at all, he is not, we hold, free to evict in retaliation for his tenant's report of housing code violations to the authorities. As a matter of statutory construction and for reasons of public policy, such an eviction cannot be permitted.'" (Schweiger v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 512, 90 Cal.Rptr. 729, 476 P.2d 97.) We recognized that protection against retaliatory eviction was necessary to protect a tenant's ability to demand clean and safe housing: "`The housing and sanitary codes ... indicate a strong and pervasive congressional concern to secure for the city's slum dwellers decent, or at least safe and sanitary, places to live. Effective implementation *228 and enforcement of the codes obviously depend in part on private initiative in the reporting of violations.... To permit retaliatory evictions ... would clearly frustrate the effectiveness of the housing code as a means of upgrading the quality of housing in Washington.... There can be no doubt that the slum dweller, even though his home be marred by housing code violations, will pause long before he complains of them if he fears eviction as a consequence. Hence an eviction under the circumstances of this case would not only punish appellant for making a complaint which she had a constitutional right to make, ... but also would stand as a warning to others that they dare not be so bold.....'" (Ibid.)

Other Sections in This Document (188)

Full Text