Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
governmental agency responsible for enforcing the code or regulation. (b) Complained to the landlord concerning the maintenance or condition of the park, rent charged or rules and regulations. (e) Organized, became a member of or served as an official in a homeowner's association, or similar organization, at a local, regional, state or national level. (d) Retained counsel or an agent to represent his interests. The plain language of this section creates a retaliatory eviction defense that may be raised in an unlawful detainer action. This is an affirmative defense, and the tenant therefore bears the burden to prove that the primary motive for the eviction is retaliation for tenant actions that are protected by the statute. Cf. Wright v. Brady, 126 Idaho 671, 889 P.2d 105 (Ct.App.1995) . Here, Powell presented evidence and argument
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that laches is an affirmative defense
B. holding that retaliatory eviction is an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer action brought pursuant to ic  6301 et seq
C. holding that an action brought pursuant to  1983 cannot lie against federal officers
D. holding that fair use is an affirmative defense
E. holding that to avoid an affirmative defense  a plaintiff must plead specifically matters of affirmative avoidance pursuant to rule 5508
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.