I attended a landlord-tenant hearing at the Suffolk County District Court. The landlord, who wanted to evict the client due to failure to pay rent had already filed a complaint, which was availed to the client by the deputy sheriff in person. The tenant did not have an attorney, which is the design of this kind of a system. All the same, the tenant availed himself, and he had a defense regarding this landlord-tenant complaint. The legal procedure in such a case as this requires the tenant to be present during the case because in some cases, the person who filed the case might try to lead the District Judge into placing a larger judgment that the one placed in the complaint. In line with this, the tenant was given the opportunity to ask for the rescheduling of the date of hearing, in case it was not in their favor.
The hearing started with the landlord, who is the one who sued, testifying first. He outlined his case very well, stating that the tenant had failed to pay the full rent for six months, and had dismissed the eviction notice given to him. The landlord put it very clear that he wanted the tenant out of his house. He did not have any witnesses with him. The tenant was then given the opportunity to ask questions, which he said he would do after he had made his statement. His defense was that he had been paying his rent faithfully until the landlord increased the rent without any prior notice. The tenant argued that this increment was unfair, and the landlord had not executed any improvements in the rental houses to warrant the raise. For this reason, the tenant did not consider the increased amount, and he continued paying the amount that was due before the increment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Magisterial District Judge listened to the tenant’s defense without requiring him to file papers in response to the complaint. The tenant had prepared a written checklist and outline, in which he had clearly developed his defense case and evidence to present, and also outlined all the questions that he wanted the District Judge to put into consideration. He also came with two of his fellow tenants as witnesses, and the confirmed that the landlord had increased the rent without giving them prior notice. The defendant also carried the receipts that showed that he had been paying his rent faithfully for the past one year before the landlord hiked the prices. Throughout the hearing, the Magisterial District Judge kept asking both parties questions for clarification, and at no point did either party interrupt him. Both the landlord and the tenant, together with the two witnesses gave their testimonies under oath, which meant that they all told the truth to the best of their ability in their statements.
After the two parties had completed giving their testimonies and presenting their evidence, it was now time for the Magisterial District Judge to give his ruling. The judge states that he had clearly heard all the arguments presented and he would give his judgment within three days. With that, the case was over, and the session was adjourned.
