Opinion ID: 2350316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Vacant units

Text: The agency also explicitly rejected Revithes' claim that vacant or temporarily withheld units are not rented or offered for rent and thus fall outside the statutory definition of rental unit. See D.C. Code § 45-1681(w) (1979 Supp.) (1977 Act); id. § 45-1503(27) (1981) (1980 Act). It relied on its decision in Thompson v. Miller, T/P 2139 (August 26, 1982), where it held that a landlord may not choose from among his holdings four units which he will treat as rental units, keep the other units vacant, and then claim an exemption for those four [occupied] units. Id. at 4. After conducting a thorough review of the cases it had previously decided under the small landlord exemption, the agency reiterated its interpretation in Blacknall v. Klawans, T/P Nos. 11,632 and 11,633 (August 12, 1985). In order to discourage circumvention of the rental housing laws resulting in a reduced supply of rental units, the agency stated that all rental units will be counted whether or not the units are occupied, vacant, or temporarily withheld from the rental market. Blacknall, supra, at 6. An agency's interpretation of the statute it administers is controlling, unless it is plainly wrong or inconsistent with its legislative purpose. Remin, supra, 471 A.2d at 279 (citing Totz v. District of Columbia Rental Accommodations Commission, 412 A.2d 44, 46 (D.C.1980)). The RHC's interpretation is far from plainly wrong. It must be remembered that the RHC never attempted to include in the aggregate number of rental units subject to control, the fourth floor area of 235 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., which the 1978 Certificate of Occupancy described as unused. Indeed, in counting the aggregate number of units, the agency referred only to the residential rental units reflected on the 1978 Certificate of Occupancy. The exclusion of vacant or temporarily withheld units from the aggregate number of a landlord's holdings would encourage landlords to withdraw rental units from the market in order to obtain higher rents for the remaining units. Such a result is diametrically opposed to the spirit and purpose of the rent control legislation. Prevention of the withdrawal of rental units from an already undersupplied market and moderation of rent increases were two of the primary goals specifically identified by the Council in its report accompanying the 1975 Act: Extension of a rent control program in the District of Columbia is a necessity, in view of the continuing housing crisis. Documentation presented to the former City Council in January 1974 indicated the following: (1) a vacancy rate in the District of Columbia so low (2.7%) as to constitute an emergency according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; (2) a declining supply of low and moderate income housing and disproportionate rent increases among low and moderate income units. According to all indications, this critical shortage, particularly for lower income families, is continuing to accelerate. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPORT ON BILL 1-157: RENTAL ACCOMMODATION ACT OF 1975 at 12 (July 31, 1975) (emphasis added). The twin goals have been continuously reiterated and now form a part of the Rental Housing Acts: The Council of the District of Columbia supports the following statutory purposes: (1) To protect low- and moderate-income tenants from the erosion of their income from increased housing costs;       (4) To protect the existing supply of rental housing from conversion to other uses. D.C.Code § 45-2502(1) and (4) (1986); id. § 45-1502(1) and (4) (1981). Pursuant to such a mandate, the agency delegated with the responsibility of enforcing the statute is more than entitled to determine that residential rental units which are vacant or temporarily withdrawn from the rental market are to be counted in determining the aggregate number of units under the control of a landlord. A contrary interpretation contains no limiting principle. Most apartment units in the District are not offered for rent at all times. As tenants vacate, units are often temporarily withdrawn from the market for renovation purposes. Under Revithes' argument, a landlord renting five apartments in the District could suddenly raise the rents of the other four upon the temporary vacancy and rehabilitation of one of them. Such a result is plainly repugnant to the purposes of the rental housing laws, to the efficient administration of those laws, and to common sense. Moreover, such a result is inconsistent with the long-standing principle that exemptions to rental housing laws are to be narrowly construed. Cambridge Management Co. v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 515 A.2d 721, 723 (D.C.1986); Remin, supra, 471 A.2d at 279. To the extent, therefore, that the agency determined that as a matter of law all rental units will be counted whether or not the units are occupied, vacant, or temporarily withheld from the rental market, we defer to its reasonable interpretation of this exemption. [24] 3.