2023 Connecticut General Statutes › Title 47a - Landlord and Tenant › Chapter 830 - Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenant › Section 47a-15. - Noncompliance by tenant. Remedy of breach by tenant. Landlord's remedies.

Prior to the commencement of a summary process action, except in the case in which the landlord elects to proceed under sections 47a-23 to 47a-23b, inclusive, to evict based on nonpayment of rent, on conduct by the tenant which constitutes a serious nuisance or on a violation of subsection (h) of section 47a-11, if there is a material noncompliance with section 47a-11 which materially affects the health and safety of the other tenants or materially affects the physical condition of the premises, or if there is a material noncompliance by the tenant with the rental agreement or a material noncompliance with the rules and regulations adopted in accordance with section 47a-9, and the landlord chooses to evict based on such noncompliance, the landlord shall deliver a written notice to the tenant specifying the acts or omissions constituting the breach and that the rental agreement shall terminate upon a date not less than fifteen days after receipt of the notice. If such breach can be remedied by repair by the tenant or payment of damages by the tenant to the landlord, and such breach is not so remedied within such fifteen-day period, the rental agreement shall terminate except that (1) if the breach is remediable by repairs or the payment of damages and the tenant adequately remedies the breach within such fifteen-day period, the rental agreement shall not terminate; or (2) if substantially the same act or omission for which notice was given recurs within six months, the landlord may terminate the rental agreement in accordance with the provisions of sections 47a-23 to 47a-23b, inclusive. For the purposes of this section, “serious nuisance” means (A) inflicting bodily harm upon another tenant or the landlord or threatening to inflict such harm with the present ability to effect the harm and under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that such threat will be carried out, (B) substantial and wilful destruction of part of the dwelling unit or premises, (C) conduct which presents an immediate and serious danger to the safety of other tenants or the landlord, or (D) using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for prostitution or the illegal sale of drugs or, in the case of a housing authority, using any area within fifteen hundred feet of any housing authority property in which the tenant resides for the illegal sale of drugs. If the landlord elects to evict based upon an allegation, pursuant to subsection (g) of section 47a-11, that the tenant failed to require other persons on the premises with his consent to conduct themselves in a manner that will not constitute a serious nuisance, and the tenant claims to have had no knowledge of such conduct, then, if the landlord establishes that the premises or, in the case of a landlord that is a housing authority, the premises or any area within fifteen hundred feet of any housing authority property in which the tenant resides has been used for the illegal sale of drugs, the burden shall be on the tenant to show that he had no knowledge of the creation of the serious nuisance.
(P.A. 76-95, S. 16, 27; 76-435, S. 75, 82; P.A. 79-571, S. 35; P.A. 80-288; P.A. 86-267, S. 2; P.A. 89-254, S. 4; P.A. 95-247, S. 6; P.A. 97-231, S. 2.)
History: P.A. 76-435 revised effective date section of P.A. 76-95; P.A. 79-571 added references to Secs. 47a-23a and 47a-23b and deleted former Subsec. (b) re termination of rental agreement for nonpayment of rent; P.A. 80-288 added evictions based on illegal conduct of tenant; P.A. 86-267 replaced provision re eviction based on conduct which “is illegal” with conduct which “constitutes a serious nuisance” and defined “serious nuisance”; P.A. 89-254 made provisions of section applicable “Prior to the commencement of a summary process action”, added exception when landlord elects to evict based “on a violation of subsection (h) of section 47a-11”, made the delivery of the written notice by the landlord to the tenant mandatory rather than discretionary and applicable if “the landlord chooses to evict based on such noncompliance” and added provision re the tenant's evidentiary burden in an eviction action when the premises have been used for the illegal sale of drugs; P.A. 95-247 redefined “serious nuisance” to include “allowing the premises to be used” for prostitution or the illegal sale of drugs; P.A. 97-231 provided that the notice shall specify that the rental agreement will terminate upon a date not less than 15 days, rather than 30 days, after receipt of the notice, decreased from 21 to 15 days the time period for the tenant to remedy the breach, amended the definition of “serious nuisance” to include, in the case of a housing authority, using any area within 1,500 feet of any housing authority property in which the tenant resides for the illegal sale of drugs and added provision that if the landlord is a housing authority and is electing to evict in certain circumstances the burden shifts to the tenant if the landlord establishes that “the premises or any area within fifteen hundred feet of any housing authority property in which the tenant resides” has been used for the illegal sale of drugs.
Cited. 202 C. 128; 224 C. 903. Plaintiff required to give defendant notice before instituting summary process action. 225 C. 600. Cited. 235 C. 650.
Cited. 5 CA 101; 13 CA 150; 19 CA 564. Clear intent to treat differently those committing a serious nuisance and those failing to require others to desist from committing a serious nuisance. 28 CA 684. Cited. 32 CA 133. Subpara. (D): Defendant's appeal dismissed for mootness. 57 CA 731. Provisions are not restricted to actions of tenant and should take into account actions of tenant's guests. 79 CA 300. Does not require landlord in summary process action to allege in pleading tenant's failure to remedy violations specified in pretermination notice. 95 CA 802. Where notice to quit referred only to defendant's creation of “serious nuisance” by engaging in conduct which presents an immediate danger to other tenants or the landlord pursuant to Subpara. (C), and court's judgment in favor of plaintiff rested on conclusion that defendant threatened to inflict bodily harm pursuant to Subpara. (A), court had no subject matter jurisdiction to evict on a ground other than one charged in the notice to quit and discrepancy deprived defendant of notice of claims to be addressed by court. 123 CA 295. As defendant was not a tenant and had no right or privilege to occupy the premises, defendant was not entitled to a separate pretermination notice because defendant could not remedy the violation except by quitting the premises. 124 CA 728. Tenant cannot “repair” a breach of lease when the breach consists of drug related criminal activity. 129 CA 313. Court had subject matter jurisdiction over summary process action where plaintiff landlord did not deliver a pretermination notice to defendant tenant but alleged in notice to quit, which complied with Sec. 47a-23, that defendant tenant's conduct constituted a serious nuisance and court did not need to reach merits of whether defendant's conduct did, in fact, constitute a serious nuisance. 209 CA 569.
Use of “may” instead of “shall” in statute does not render requirement of notice directory rather than mandatory; “may” is to be construed as “shall” when necessary to effect manifest legislative intent. 35 CS 274. Cited. Id., 297; 37 CS 534; 38 CS 683. Plaintiff landlord was exempt under statute from serving pretermination notice to tenant evicted as a result of arrest off the premises for illegal sale of drugs; alleged acts by tenant arguably fall within definition of “serious nuisance” under statute. 50 CS 125.