Mason, wrote to Merlina that his lease was being breached by refusing to permit defendant-landlord and agents to inspect the premises, by maintaining the premises in dirty condition, and by not repairing the premises as required by the lease.
9. On July 31, 1952, Allen N. Brunwasser, Esq., as attorney for the defendant, Robert Mason, notified Merlina to vacate the premises for reasons set forth in the letter of July 24, 1952.
10. Under date of August 1, 1952, the defendant, Mason, notified Merlina that inspection would be made of the premises on August 5th. Inspection was permitted by the tenant.
11. Under date of August 8, 1952, a letter was addressed to the tenant by the defendant, Mason, repeating the claims of unsanitary conditions and failure to repair, referring to an inspection on August 4th by Mason and a Mr. Beerman.
12. Under date of September 5, 1952, Merlina received a notice from defendant's attorney to vacate the premises in thirty days.
13. Thereafter, the defendant, Mason, instituted eviction proceedings before Justice of the Peace James S. Ackelson of Brentwood, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and a hearing was held therein on October 14, 1952. After the testimony was completed, the Justice of the Peace reserved his decision.
14. Subsequently, the defendant, Robert Mason, by his attorney, Allen N. Brunwasser, Esq., instituted an action of ejectment against the tenant, August Merlina, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, at No. 1034 January Term, 1953, and issued a Rule upon August Merlina to show cause why judgment in ejectment should not be entered against him for the premises which he occupies at the aforementioned address. The grounds for this action were the same as in the proceeding before Justice of the Peace Ackelson.
15. As shown by defendant's petition to the Area Rent Office for Certificate Relating to Eviction of the Tenant, dated January 30, 1952, as well as by the testimony taken in this hearing, the condition of the premises involved in this proceeding was due to age and normal wear and tear.
16. The tenant, Merlina, did not keep the premises in an unsanitary condition and even Mr. Beerman, the sole witness offered by the defendant in this hearing, failed to sustain the claims of the defendant in this respect.
17. The actions of the defendant in seeking to bring about the removal of the tenant, Merlina, as enumerated above as testified to in the hearing in this proceeding, were not in good faith and were not founded upon grounds approved in the Housing Rent Regulation.
18. Under the circumstances present in this case, the defendant, Robert Mason, has engaged and is about to engage in acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of the Federal Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1881 et seq., and of the Housing Rent Regulation issued under the authority of said Act.
Conclusions of Law.
1. The premises involved in this proceeding at 3808 Pier Street, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, are subject to the provisions of the Federal Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, and the Housing Rent Regulation issued thereunder.
2. Failure by the tenant to make repairs to the premises used by the defendant, Robert Mason, as the basis for his attempts to evict the tenant, relates to conditions which are the result of ordinary wear and tear and the age of the structure, and are not the responsibility of the tenant under the lease offered in evidence by the defendant.
3. Under the testimony produced at the hearing in this proceeding, the defendant, Mason, has been attempting to bring about the removal of the tenant, August Merlina, without grounds approved in the Housing Rent Regulation issued under the authority contained in Section 209 of the Federal Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended.
4. The actions of defendant, Robert Mason, as hereinabove enumerated constitute a course of conduct calculated to bring about the removal of the tenant contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Regulation, and intended to circumvent and evade the provisions of Section 206(a)(2) of the Act and of Sections 181 to 197, inclusive, of the Housing Rent Regulation.
5. The evidence presented at the hearing in this proceeding indicates that the defendant, Robert Mason, has engaged and is about to engage in acts and practices which constitute and will constitute a violation of the aforesaid Act and Regulation and that plaintiff is entitled to injunction relief as provided for in Section 206(b) of the Act.
6. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction should be granted.
An appropriate Order is entered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.