7
dwelling unit to the exclusion of others’”—extended to the named tenant’s sister, even after the
named tenant moved out, reasoning that the rent ordinance “clearly focuses on occupancy as
the factor which triggers rent control protection,” and that an adoption of the lessor’s “narrow
and unduly restrictive interpretation of the Ordinance . . . would undermine the intent of the
legislation and deny rent control protection to a long-term resident who occupied her apartment
with the owner’s knowledge and consent, albeit without a formal lease.” (Id. at pp. 493-496.)
In Miller, the tenant resided in a rent-controlled apartment in the City of Santa Monica.
(Miller, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p. Supp. 15.) After the tenant died, her mother, who did not
live in the apartment, continued making the rent payments in her daughter’s name and did not
inform the lessor of the death. (Id. at p. Supp. 16.) The lessor served the mother with a 30-day
notice to vacate and refused to accept any further rental payments after learning of the tenant’s
death. (Ibid.) This court rejected the mother’s contention that she was entitled to the
protections of the SMRCCA, explaining that the mother “was neither a tenant, subtenant,
lessee, or a sublessee under the rental agreement; nor was she entitled to the use or occupancy
of the apartment under the agreement. Although she continued to pay rent after her daughter’s
death, she did so under the subterfuge that her deceased daughter was the one making the
payments.” (Id. at pp. Supp. 19-20, fn. omitted.) Distinguishing the case from Parkmerced,
this court relied on the fact that the mother was “virtually unknown to the landlord, and
certainly was not a lawful occupant.” (Id. at p. 20, fn. 6.)
In DeZerega, a tenant signed a written lease which permitted occupancy by two other
unnamed roommates. (DeZerega, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at pp. 31-32.) After the defendant
moved into the unit as an unnamed roommate, one of the named tenants notified the plaintiff
that she wished to end her tenancy. (Ibid.) The defendant refused to vacate the premises after
one of the other tenants served him with a 30-day notice to quit. (Id. at p. 32.) Several months
later, the plaintiff initiated an unlawful detainer action against the defendant based on the
premise that one of the named tenants terminated his subtenancy. (Id. at p. 34.) The trial court
entered judgment in favor of defendant after finding that he was a tenant, and that even if he