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

Each of the Ds involved rented an apartment in a three-building apartment complex from P. P filed an action against each D in the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the Court of General Sessions on April 8, 1966, seeking possession on the ground that Ds had defaulted in the payment of rent due for the month of April. Ds admitted that they had not paid any rent for April. Ds also alleged numerous violations of the Housing Regulations as 'an equitable defense or a claim by way of recoupment or set-off in an amount equal to the rent claim,' as provided in the rules of the Court of General Sessions. Ds offered to prove all the housing and code violations by P. The Court of General Sessions refused Ds' offer of proof and entered judgment for P. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the argument made by Ds that the landlord was under a contractual duty to maintain the premises in compliance with the Housing Regulations. Ds appealed.

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.