Rent Control Tenants Cannot Regain Apartments Under Hardship Claim If Evicted, Court Rules

By Jorge Casuso

September 30, 1999 --In a Beverly Hills decision that could have wide-ranging repercussions, particularly in Santa Monica, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court has ruled that there is no legal authority to reinstate a month to month rent control tenancy after a judgement for eviction.

The superior court decision, published last month, could reverberate throughout the beachfront city, where for 20 years tenants have often had their tenancies reinstated after paying late rents and showing that eviction would constitute a hardship.

But attorneys for the plaintiff, a Beverly Hills landlord, argued that in a month to month tenancy - which applies to nearly every rent controlled apartment -- there is no lease to reinstate.

"It's a little case out of nowhere that changes how courts have been ruling," said the plaintiff's attorney Gordon P. Gitlen. "It tells them they can't grant (reinstatement) unless there is a long-term lease. Most rent control tenancies are month to month."

Under rent control, there is no reason to have a lease because landlords want tenants to move out of the artificially low-rent units, which often are occupied by a tenant for years, if not decades, Gitlen said. On the other hand, the protections usually granted to tenants in a lease fall within the authority of the rent control board.

"This is the first time that a challenge was made to the procedure by which tenants have consistently applied for and received Court permission to be placed back into possession of rent controlled units after a judgement for eviction," Gitlen said.

In the Beverly Hills case, the defendant was evicted after failing to pay his $299 rent in March, 1998. The tenant, who offered to pay the rent after receiving an eviction notice, claimed the eviction was retaliatory in nature due to the low monthly rent he was paying under rent control laws.

A lower court granted the reinstatement saying it could "not ignore the fact that the defendant, an octogenarian, has been a tenant in the subject premises for 25 years and that prior to the month of March, 1998, he paid his rent on time." The court gave the tenant two weeks to pay the rent.

The landlord appealed, and the Appellate Division of the Superior Court agreed that "the trial court in the present action could not have in any event ordered relief from forfeiture because there was no lease which could be forfeited."

Further, the court ruled that the Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Act has no provision to extend "a tenancy beyond that agreed upon by the parties at the inception."

The 30 days granted for an appeal of the case, published on August 24, has expired.