May a landlord maintain an unlawful detainer (UD) action against a month-to-month tenant who remains in possession following expiration of a notice of intent to vacate when the unit is subject to a rent control ordinance?

Roxbury Lane LP, v. Benjamin Harris

Facts: A landlord rents a residential unit to a month-to-month tenant. A local rental control ordinance limits evictions to approved reasons. The tenant delivers a 30-day notice of intent to vacate to the landlord. On expiration of the notice, the tenant remains in possession of the property. The landlord files an unlawful detainer (UD) action to evict the tenant.

Claim: The tenant claims the landlord may not maintain a UD action since under the ordinance the tenant had a right to maintain possession after expiration of a notice of intent to vacate as expiration of an intent to vacate is not an approved reason for eviction.

Counterclaim: The landlord claims the tenant is not protected by the ordinance since the tenant failed to vacate before the expiration of the notice which converted the tenant into a tenant-at-sufferance to which the ordinance does not apply.

Holding: A California appeals court holds the landlord may not maintain a UD action based on the tenant’s continued occupancy after the expiration of the notice of intent to vacate since the ordinance protects a tenant’s right to possession on expiration of the tenant’s notice to vacate as their holdover is not a permitted reason for eviction. [Roxbury Lane LP, v. Harris (2023) 88 CA5th 9]

Roxbury Lane LP, v. Benjamin Harris

Real Estate Principles: Chapter 81: Notices to vacate — Rent control limitations on eviction