LANDLADY JANICE’S BATTLE
WITH BHAGWAN OF THE BALCONY

One of the problems of writing this column month after month is finding Stories that are simple enough to tell. I wrote two previous Stories about a landlady named Janice who became a “landlord” by inheriting an apartment building from her mother but they were so complicated that even I find them confusing when I review them today. Therefore, this column will only attempt to tell one part of Janice’s many battles to recover possession of a controlled rental unit from a mystic whom we refer to as “Bhagwan” because of his resemblance to Bhagwan Shree Rajaneesh who set up a huge ashram of 15,000 followers and took over the small town of Antelope, Oregon and changed its name to “City of Rajneesh.”

Janice’s latest battle to recover possession of one of her controlled rental units began in August 2002, when she was watering the plants at her apartment building and saw a barefoot man who appeared to be wearing gold pajamas on the balcony of one of her controlled rental units. He asked if she sought spiritual enlightenment through meditation classes. Janice replied that she sought enlightenment concerning his identity and knowledge about why he was on her property. After receiving some very cosmic but evasive answers, Janice decided to investigate further.

Janice did not have to investigate very hard because a few days later, she received a letter from the tenants who lived in the unit below the location where she first saw Bhagwan. That letter informed her that the tenants were vacating their apartment because they were tired of the meditation classes and constant noise coming from the unit above them at all hours of the day and night. Two residents from the property next door informed Janice that her authorized tenant had moved to a condominium that she had purchased with her domestic partner and that Janice’s unit was being used for meditation classes or yoga classes held by a man named Ratziel.

Janice then met with the authorized tenant in the rental unit and found that the unit had been completely redecorated to include a fountain and a large statue of Buddha’s head located in the living room. However, the tenant denied that anyone else was living in the unit or that anything unusual was taking place. A few days later, she also sent Janice a letter that threatened to file a tenant harassment complaint with the City Attorney if Janice did not cease invading her privacy.

In September 2002, Janice issued a Three-Day Notice to Perform or Quit upon the authorized tenant based upon nuisance and because the authorized tenant no longer lived in the rental unit. This was based upon Santa Monica Rent Control Law Section 1806 (g) permits tenant evictions where, “The tenant holding at the end of term of the rental housing agreement is a subtenant not approved by the landlord.” However, before the eviction action was filed, Bhagwan allowed an illegally installed washing machine to overflow which caused between $11,000-$22,553 to that rental unit and the unit below. Therefore, in November 2002, Janice issued a second Notice to Perform or Quit based upon the damage done to the property and demanding that she remove the washing machine.

The second Notice was based upon Santa Monica Rent Control Law Section 1806 (c) permits tenant evictions where, “The tenant is committing or expressly permitting a nuisance in, or is causing substantial damage to, the controlled rental unit, or is creating a substantial interference with the comfort, safety, or enjoyment of the landlord or other occupants or neighbors of the same.”

An eviction action based upon both Notices described above was held before Judge John L. Segal and dragged on until May 2003, when the Judge issued a Statement of Decision that correctly stated most of the facts, which are quoted below:

“The evidence shows and the court finds, that Plaintiff [i.e., Janice] has proven bya preponderance of the evidence that defendant [ i.e., Tenant] has permitted the rental unit to be used for non-residential purposes, has permitted persons to remain in the unit while she is not present for long periods of time, and has allowed such persons [i.e., Bhagwan] to come on the property in her absence with such frequency and to engage in such activities so as to create a substantial interference with the comfort and enjoyment of property by other occupants and neighbors. This interference was so substantial that in September 2002 it forced one of the plaintiff’s tenants living in the rental unit below defendant to move out as a result of, and to seek refuge from, the activities defendant caused or permitted to occur in her unit.”

The evidence also shows, and the court finds, that plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the unit is not defendant’s primary residence. Indeed, defendant has stated repeatedly under penalty of perjury that her primary residence is elsewhere. The evidence shows and the court finds, that the defendant is keeping the rental unit for secondary occupancy and purposes other than the defendant’s residence, that the unit is not her usual residence, and that defendant if a tenant not in occupancy. . .”

The facts stated above would seem to indicate that Janice should have won the eviction case because the court found that; (a) the tenant had permitted others to create a nuisance which caused “…tenants living in the rental unit below defendant to move out as a result of, and to seek refuge from, the activities defendant caused or permitted to occur in her unit and (b) that the tenant no longer lived at the subject property but was permitting it to be used for non-residential purposes.”

Unfortunately, the Statement of Decision then found that the Rent Control Law did not require that tenants actually live in the controlled rental units they rent and, “Therefore, defendant’s non-residential use of the unit is not a ground for termination of tenancy by the plaintiff.” Speaking to the issue of the flood, the Judge found, “In addition, one flooding washing machine does not a nuisance make.”

Therefore, I guess that the two morals of this Story seem to be that; (1) although apartment owners must be burdened by residential rent controls, tenants have no obligation to actually live in those units or use them as a residence, and (2) every tenant deserves one good flood and cannot be evicted for damaging an owner’s property by the flooding of an illegally installed washing machine.

I wonder if the outcome would have been different if Bhagwan had caused a fire instead of a flood. I doubt it. Actually, I doubt that this Judge would have evicted Charlie Manson from Sharon Tate’s house. And if you don’t believe it, go to the Courthouse and read Rent Board Story 02U01099, which is the case number of the eviction action I have been talking about.

As I said at the beginning of this Story, the eviction attempt was only the first phase of the battle to recover possession of her controlled rental unit that Janice eventually won. Phase 2 of the battle took place between May 2003, and August 2004 at hearings before a Santa Monica Rent Control Hearing Examiner in Regulation 3304 Petition N-100. But that Story will have to wait to another day, assuming that I figure out a way to explain it.