Opinion ID: 2350316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the small landlord exemption

Text: Revithes primarily claims on appeal that the RHC ruled that mere ownership of more than four units, regardless of use, subjects a small landlord to rent control limitations. Revithes, however, simplifies and partially mischaracterizes the nature of the decision on review. The agency disallowed Revithes' claim of exemption on both substantive and procedural grounds. We address those in turn.
The 1977 Act was in effect when the allegedly unlawful increases were taken and the tenant petitions were filed. See notes 2, 3, supra (1977 Act effective March 16, 1978; 1980 Act effective May 1, 1981). The 1977 Act exempted from registration and coverage: any rental unit in any housing accommodation of four (4) or fewer units, including any aggregate of four (4) units whether within the same structure or not.[ [18] ] D.C.Code § 45-1686(a)(4) (1979 Supp.) (the 1977 Act); see also id. § 45-1516(a)(3) (1981) (the 1980 Act); id. § 45-2515(a)(3) (1986) (the 1985 Act). A rental unit was defined as: any part of a housing accommodation ... which is rented or offered for rent for residential occupancy.[ [19] ] D.C.Code § 45-1681(w) (1979 Supp.) (the 1977 Act); see also id. § 45-1503(27) (1981) (the 1980 Act); id. § 45-2503(33) (1986) (1985 Act). Revithes argues that between August 1978, and October 1982, only four of her six units were rental units within the meaning of the statute. Specifically, she claims that both Units 2 and 3 of 235 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., should have been excluded in the aggregate number of units she controlled because they were used in the following ways: Unit 2 Unit 3 August 1, 1978  commercial August 1, 1979 vacant or August 1, 1979  occupied by uncle commercial October 1980 or 1981[ [20] ] who paid no rent storage October 1980 or 1981  vacant (the entire time) October 1982 Thus, she claims she was exempt. [21]