1968, Transcript of Record in DCCA No. 4864 at 6-7.  When the landlord failed to keep this promise, Mrs. Robinson began with-holding rent, and Diamond Housing sued for possession.  Mrs. Robinson defended on the ground that substantial housing violations existed at the time the lease was signed and that the lease was therefore unenforceable under the principles announced in Brown v. Southall Realty Co., supra.  Specifically, Mrs. Robinson introduced evidence showing that large pieces of plaster were missing throughout the house, that there was no step from the front walk to the front porch, that the front porch was shaky and unsafe, that there was a wall in the back bedroom which was not attached to the ceiling and which moved back and forth whenpressed, that nails protruded along the side of the stairway, that there was a pane of glass missing from the living room window, and that the window frame in the kitchen was so far out of position that one could see into the back yard through the space between it and the wall.  See Transcript of Record in DCCA No. 4864 at 7-8.  At the completion of the trial, the jury returned a special verdict finding that housing code violations existed at the inception of the lease rendering the premises unsafe and unsanitary.  Id. at 10-11.  The trial court then granted judgment to Mrs. Robinson, as required by Southall Realty.  Id. at 17.


10
Unwilling to admit defeat, Diamond Housing instituted a second suit for