Therefore, on the present record, any possible warranty of habitability defenses should not bar the court from ordering payment of rent and arrears by all persons in occupancy. Without such funds, which he holds for the benefit of the mortgagee, the receiver would have no funds to maintain or effect any repairs to the premises and the court’s mandate would be frustrated.
In any event, the building’s commercial tenants would not be protected under the warranty of habitability in this case, and would presumably be obliged to pay rent to the receiver under the court’s July 1995 order.