[brief] CROSSED THE LINE OF IMPARTIALITY (1T21-10)  The Anti-Eviction Act N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 places the burden of establishing good cause for eviction on the landlord.  Fromet Properties, Inc. v. Buel, 294 N.J.Super. 601, 610 (App.Div.1996); see also 447 Associates v. Miranda, 115 N.J. 522, 530–31, (1989); Sudersan v. Royal, 386 N.J.Super. 246, 251 (App. Div. 2005); Village Bridge Apartments v. Mammucari, 239 N.J.Super. 235, 240 (App. Div. 1990).  This is consistent with the Act’s stated legislative purpose of “prevent[ing] the eviction of blameless tenants. ”  Chase Manhattan Bank v. Josephson, 135 N.J. 209 (1994).  Additionally, the landlord has the burden of proof regarding any disputed fact relevant to good cause under N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1.  See Hale v. Farrakhan, 390 N.J. Super. 335, 341 (App. Div. 2007) citing Fromet Properties Inc. v. Buel, 294 N.J.Super. 601 (App. Div. 1996); In the case at bar, Plaintiff’s allegation that the Defendant owed it rent was met with the defense by the tenant that Plaintiff, having received $21,000 in rental assistance, had double billed.  With the receipt of assistance uncontroverted, it became Plaintiff’s burden to prove that notwithstanding receipt of the $21,000 rental assistance payment, it was still owed rent.  In that regard, Plaintiff needed to show how it applied the rental assistance, what payments the tenant had made and for what months rent remained unpaid.  In the event Plaintiff should fail to meet that burden, the fair application of law would require dismissal of Plaintiff’s case.  The record below shows that Plaintiff did little to nothing toward meeting its proof burden.  The record shows that Plaintiff who had not attached to its complaint a rent ledger, also did not produce one at trial for the court to review.  The record also shows that Plaintiff having received $21,000 in rental assistance and facing the charge that it may have double billed, did not offer proofs to the court as to what months of rent it had allocated that assistance to.  The record shows that Plaintiff also came to court with no receipts or records of payments made by the tenant and its testimony would be it never gave receipts to the tenant.  This included not having any records as to payments in cash for rent that Defendant made, something Plaintiff acknowledged had taken place.  In the absence of a rent ledger, the court took on the task of creating one.  In the face of allegations of double billing by the Plaintiff and in the absence of any records from the Plaintiff as to how it had applied the [...] rental assistance payment, the court expanded the scope of the action to encompass the entire history of the tenancy.  In the absence of any records from the Plaintiff as to rent payments received, the court conducted an exhaustive one sided examination of the Defendant’s Zelle payment records on her cell phone going back to the very inception of the tenancy.  As to payments of rent made in cash, something which both the Plaintiff and Defendant agreed had taken place, well those the court held would simply go uncounted.  Defendant was not to be given credit for even a single rent payment in cash.  The court’s failure to dismiss this action where Plaintiff did not come prepared to meet its burden of proof violated Defendant’s right to a fair adjudication of her case.  Further, having excused the Plaintiff from its burden of proof, the procedures which the court employed violated the Defendant’s right to an impartial and fair adjudication of her case.  On that basis and other grounds, the judgment below must be vacated.