Each of the tenants in this case (D) rented an apartment in a building owned by P. None of the tenants had paid rent for the month of April. P filed an action for possession. In their answer, D admitted that they had not paid the rent, but alleged numerous violations of the Housing Regulations, and offering to prove the existence of the violations, and their tendency to establish a course of conduct in P of violation of the Housing Regulations. D's offer of proof went only to conditions that had arisen since the beginning of the leases. Because of this, the lower court rejected D's offer of proof. On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, rejecting D's argument that P had a duty to maintain the premises in compliance with the Housing Regulations. D appeals, arguing that the Housing Regulations imply a warranty of habitability into all leases and that P had a duty to maintain the apartments in a habitable condition.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.