Home Mohamad Afzal v. Michael Garcia


February 27, 2020

Housing Court, Southeast Division

Joseph L. Michaud, Associate Justice


This is a summary process action brought to recover possession of the subject rental premises for non-payment of rent via a 14 day Notice to Quit. Plaintiff was represented by counsel and the Defendant appeared pro se. Defendant did not file an answer or counterclaim but testified at trial without objection. Plaintiff provided testimonial and documentary evidence. Based on the credible evidence at trial the following findings, rulings and orders are to enter:

1. Plaintiff is the owner of the subject rental premises located at 35 Buffington Street, 2nd Floor in Fall River, Massachusetts ("Premises") where the Defendant has resided since February 2017;

2. The parties entered into an oral agreement concerning rental of the premises;

3. The monthly rent total is $750.00, which is due and payable on the first of each month;

4. At the time of trial, the Plaintiff claimed the amount past due was $2590.00;

5. On November 11, 2019 the Plaintiff served and the Defendant received a legally sufficient 14 day notice to quit;

6. A legally sufficient Summary Process Summons and Complaint was served to the Defendant on January 20, 2020;

7. On February 13, 2020 the parties appeared and after attempts at mediation failed, the matter proceeded to trial;

At trial, Plaintiff's counsel, submitted the Notice to Quit and orally moved to amend the rental amount being sought to $2,590.00. This motion was allowed over the objection of the Defendant. The Plaintiff stated that despite multiple attempts to collect the rent, that the Defendant had refused to pay a portion of November and no rent for December, January or February 2020. The Court credits this evidence and testimony.

The Defendant testified that he didn't pay rent because of problems with the unit. He claimed that there were bedbugs and rodents present but besides his testimony presented no other evidence. The Court did not credit this testimony. Plaintiff, in rebuttal, stated that he has no issues with pests in the Premises and had the premises treated several times for bed bugs and other pests. He provided copies of invoices that indicated an ongoing treatment of the Premises. The Court credits this testimony. The Defendant did not present any other viable defenses or counterclaims to the current action.

Order and Entry of Judgment. For the above-stated reasons, Judgment shall enter for the Plaintiff for possession of the subject rental premises, for $2,590.00 and the costs related to the prosecution of this matter.