In any action for summary process under this chapter or section 21-80 it shall be an affirmative defense that the plaintiff brought such action solely because the defendant attempted to remedy, by lawful means, including contacting officials of the state or of any town, city, borough or public agency or filing a complaint with a fair rent commission, any condition constituting a violation of any of the provisions of chapter 368o, or of chapter 412, or of any other state statute or regulation or of the housing or health ordinances of the municipality wherein the premises which are the subject of the complaint lie. The obligation on the part of the defendant to pay rent or the reasonable value of the use and occupancy of the premises which are the subject of any such action shall not be abrogated or diminished by any provision of this section.
(1969, P.A. 315; 1972, P.A. 160, S. 4; 186, S. 14; P.A. 74-333, S. 6, 12; P.A. 78-303, S. 118, 136; P.A. 79-560, S. 20, 39.)
History: 1972 acts specified as affirmative defense that plaintiff brought action because defendant sought remedy by filing complaint with fair rent commission and added reference to statutes and regulations other than provisions of Ch. 352 and later added reference to Ch. 412; P.A. 74-333 added reference to Sec. 21-80; Sec. 52-540a transferred to Sec. 47a-33 in 1977; P.A. 78-303 deleted reference to Sec. 21-80; P.A. 79-560 restored reference to Sec. 21-80.
See Sec. 47a-20 prohibiting retaliatory action by landlord.
See Sec. 47a-21 re actions deemed not to be retaliatory.
Annotations to former section 52-540a:
Cited. 33 CS 15. Defense of retaliatory eviction not available in summary process action for nonpayment of rent. 34 CS 594.
Cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 207, 208.
Annotations to present section:
Cited. 178 C. 586; 217 C. 313.
Cited. 1 CA 439; 16 CA 444.
Cited. 35 CS 233. Section establishes retaliatory action as affirmative defense; no presumptions permitted under section and tenant, by affirmative proof, must establish landlord's primary motive in seeking eviction was in retaliation for tenant's exercise of his statutory right to report housing code violations; burden of persuasion for affirmative defense rests upon tenant who asserts it. Id., 261. Cited. 36 CS 47; 38 CS 70; Id., 370.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.