2008 Ct. Sup. 15049
No. NBSP-050003Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New Britain, Housing Session at New Britain
May 23, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
PETER EMMETT WIESE, JUDGE.
I PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter is a summary process action commenced by notice to quit and writ, summons and complaint. The plaintiff alleges that the parties had a written lease agreement for residential property located at 54 Bradford Walk, Farmington, Connecticut. The term of the lease was for one year commencing on December 1, 2007. The monthly rent is alleged to be $2,500 payable on the first day of each month. The plaintiff contends that the defendant breached the lease agreement by failing to pay the rent due on January and February 2008.
The defendant responded to the complaint with an answer and special defense. In the pleading the defendant denied that she failed to pay rent and asserts that the premises are in an unfit or uninhabitable condition. On May 1, 2008 a trial was conducted. The parties appeared and presented sworn testimony and a number of exhibits.
II DISCUSSION
Based on the credible evidence presented the court finds the following facts to have been proven. The plaintiff is the owner of property located at 54 Bradford Walk, Farmington, Connecticut. The premises consists of a 2600 square foot townhouse condominium unit. The parties entered into a written lease agreement on November 16, 2007 (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1). The term of the lease was for one year commencing on December 1, 2007.
The defendant paid the first month’s rent and a $2,500 security deposit. The checks tendered for the months of January and February 2008 CT Page 15050 were returned for insufficient funds. The defendant has failed to pay the rent for those two months.
The defendant asserts in the special defense that the premises were partially unfit or uninhabitable. Accordingly, she should be relieved of the obligation to pay rent.
The monthly rent was specified at $2,500. At the defendant’s request she was permitted to take possession the second week of November 2007. The defendant was aware that a clothes washer located on the second floor had overflowed causing some minor damage to the spare bedroom, a bathroom and basement utility room where a water heater was replaced. The plaintiff hired contractors to address the damage. The work has been substantially performed. The defendant has the burden of proof on this special defense.
The lease agreement provides in relevant part:
“You will not have to pay rent for any time that your use and enjoyment of the residence is substantially affected because it is severely damaged by fire or other casualty. However, you will pay rent if you caused the damage or destruction if you continue to occupy any portion of the residence. If you continue to occupy the residence, your rent shall be reduced by the decrease in the fair rental value of the house. If any part of the residence is damaged by fire or other casualty, we shall have the right to cancel this lease. If we decide to cancel the lease, we will give you notice within 15 days after the date of the fire or other casualty. The lease will end on the date that we give in our notice to you. If we do not cancel the lease, we will repair the damage within a reasonable time.” (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, paragraph 9).
In addition, General Statutes § 42a-7(a)(23) provides in relevant part: “A landlord shall: . . . make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition . . .”
The credible evidence demonstrates that the damage caused to the premises did not render them in whole or in part unfit or uninhabitable. The defendant’s use and enjoyment was not substantially affected as claimed. There was minor damage to the premises and corrective action was taken. Accordingly, the defendant has not sustained her burden of proof on this special defense. CT Page 15051
The defendant has failed to pay the rent for the months of January and February 2008 in violation of the terms of the lease agreement. She remains in possession of the premises. Accordingly, judgment for immediate possession of the premises is ordered in favor of the plaintiff for nonpayment of rent.
III CONCLUSION
Judgment shall enter in favor of the plaintiff. CT Page 15052