Presumption of Retalaition

[Dana R.]

Tenant always pays on time, but when the lease ends I want him out ASAP. 

But, what can you do to get rid of the tenant if he claims retalaition? Under the presumption of retalaition, the courts will presume that the landlord is illegally evicting a tenant if the landlord evicts, doesn't renew lease, or raises rent 6 months after a tenant exercises his rights.

There was an incidence that would be in the 6 month timeline before the lease ends where something broke and the tenant didn't contact me through the proper channels as laid out under the lease and then hired somebody to fix it the next day before I had a chance to fix it. Most reasonable people would see it was a annoyance, but not necessarily a habitability issue. 

How seriously would the courts examine the tenant's claim? How legitimate does the tenant's complaint need to be to get protection from retalaition?

In this case, would the courts say that because the tenant didn't give me enough, really any, time to fix it, the tenant can't claim the right to deduct and therefore can't claim retaliation?

Or, would the courts say its just enough that the tenant made the claim in the first case, regardless of how legitimate their claim is because the tenant doesn't know any better; ie in good faith?

Has anybody ever here ever had to deal with a tenant who tried to use a tactic like retalaition?