How Would
YOU Rule?  

Lester Luz properly served a 30-day notice to terminate on his residential tenant, Ted Tiger. At the end of the 30 days, Tiger refused to vacate the premises, so Luz filed a UD action against him. At trial, Tiger presented credible evidence, including reports from government housing inspectors, that the rental unit has serious breaches of the warranty of habitability. Luz objects to the admission of any evidence of breach of the warranty of habitability. How would you rule?

ANSWER

b. Refuse to admit the evidence

Breach of the warranty of habitability is not an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer action based on a 30-day notice. It can only be used as a defense in a nonpayment of rent unlawful detainer. [See §4.02.] Tiger could bring an ordinary civil action against Luz for the breach of warranty of habitability if he wanted, but it is not a defense to the UD.