Opinion ID: 1966812
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Interpretation Effectuates Purpose of Statute

Text: We also find the Commission's second reconsideration decision reinstating Pyne reasonable because the interpretation of housing accommodation to include multi-building complexes furthers the underlying purposes and policies of the statute. Section 208 of the Rental Accommodations Act of 1975 permits a landlord to increase the rent ceiling of a vacant unit. He can elect to take a flat ten percent increase in the existing ceiling or he can raise the ceiling to that of a substantially identical rental unit in the same housing accommodation. The policy underlying § 208 is to allow landlords a fair rate of return while protecting tenants' rights and promoting the purpose of rent control. Rent increases are to be based on units which constitute a fair rental comparison. Accordingly, the Act requires the units to be substantially identical. Units are said to be substantially identical when they contain essentially the same square footage, same floor plan, comparable amenities and equipment, comparable locations with respect to exposure and height and are in comparable physical condition. Section 214 (b), Rental Accommodations Act of 1975. The fact that a unit is located in the same building as the unit subject to a vacancy rent increase no doubt increases the likelihood that it will be determined substantially identical. But this does not mean that units in another building in the same multi-building complex could not also meet the test for substantial identity. The RHC's decision here simply gives a landlord the opportunity to try and prove the units are substantially identical despite their location in separate buildings. The RHC has carefully delimited the circumstances under which a vacancy rent increase based on a unit from another building may be taken. [3] In emphasizing the degree of identity between units as the critical factor in vacancy rent increases, the RHC has isolated the key element in the provision and eliminated an artificial limitation imposed by an interpretation allowing only same building increases. The ruling also has the salutary effect of eliminating potential inequity between owners of high-rise apartment buildings and owners of smaller, low-level apartment buildings.