Hello Sabrina,
I enjoyed your post. I found the way you touched upon public policy concerns relative to the landlord-tenant relationship to be of interest. Specifically, my research also notes that the appellate court decisions and rationales show a nexus between the protection of landlord-tenant rights and a public policy concern to protect the quality of the existing housing supply. [1] This is a far cry from where the landlord tenant relationship began as a conveyance of land. In that conveyance; unless the two parties entered into an express agreement for the landlord to repair or maintain the premises, the landlord was not burdened to perform. [2] Thus, with respect to the warranty of habitability, if (in some form) it did exist.
It seems highly likely that the warranty was weak and limited in scope. It seems likely that this warranty was not something a tenant could rely on after taking possession of the premises. Surely, without some type of assurance that a property would be maintained and habitable, one could argue that slumlord conditions might prevail. This would lead to the degradation of the housing supply. Society would need to modify its public policy goals to bring stability to the housing market. Courts would then need to consider supporting public policy goals when deciding cases where safety and habitability was at issue. Thus, the creation of the nexus between the protection of landlord-tenant rights and a public policy concern to protect the quality of the existing housing supply.
[1] Leslie E. Gerwin, A Study of the Evolution and Potential of Landlord Tenant Law and Judicial Dispute Settlement Mechanism in the District of Columbia – Part I: The Substantive Law and the Nature of the Private Relationship, 26 Catholic University Law Review 1–57 (1977), https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2444&context=lawreview (last visited Feb 23, 2018).
[2] Id.