Hardy v. Housing Management Co.

Eldridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murphy, C. J., concurs in the result. In this case we are asked to decide whether an article of the Montgomery County Code relating to rent control applies within the City of Gaithersburg, an incorporated municipality located within Montgomery County. Several tenants of apartments located in Gaithersburg, and managed by Housing Management Co., brought an action for damages against Housing Management in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

The tenants claimed that during their tenancies, from 1971 to 1978, Housing Management received numerous rent increases in violation of Article VI of the Montgomery County Landlord-Tenant Relations Act, Montgomery County Code (1972, 1977 Repl. Vol., 1980 Cum Supp.), § 29-47 et seq. Housing Management demurred on the ground that the county act did not apply within the city. Thereafter, the City of Gaithersburg’s motion to intervene on the side of Housing Management was granted, and the city filed a memorandum ³⁹⁶ in support of the demurrer.

After an oral hearing, the trial judge sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The tenants then took an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. Before any proceedings took place in the intermediate appellate court, we granted a petition for certiorari filed by Housing Management and the City of Gaithersburg. Section 29-75 (a) of the Montgomery County Code (1972, 1977 repl. vol.), sets forth the applicability of the rent control article: "This chapter or this article shall be effective throughout the county except in any incorporated town, village or other municipality which by law has authority to enact a law on the same subjects as covered by the various articles and sections of this chapter.

If any such incorporated town, village or other municipality shall adopt this chapter or any article of it and request the county to enforce the provisions thereof within its corporate limits, the county shall thereafter administer and enforce the same within such incorporated town, village or municipality. The county executive is authorized to enter into agreements with such incorporated town, village or municipality to collect the administrative costs of implementation from such municipalities.” Thus, the county rent control law, by its own language, is not effective in any incorporated municipality which has authority to enact similar laws, whether or not it has actually exercised such authority. The question in this case is, therefore, whether the City of Gaithersburg has authority to regulate landlord-tenant relations. It is well established under our decisions that a municipal corporation has but limited authority.

This Court has often quoted 1 J. Dillon, Municipal Corporations § 237 (5th ed. 1911) as follows: "[A] municipal corporation ... can exercise the following powers, and no others: First, those