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.