Pennsylvania House Bill HB734

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/25/25
• Refer: 2/25/25
• Refer: 4/24/25
• Report Pass: 5/5/25
• Engrossed: 5/5/25
• Refer: 5/16/25
• Refer: 6/23/25

Caption

In tenement buildings and multiple dwelling premises, further providing for landlord's duties; and providing for tenant relocation.

Impact

The impact of HB 734 on state laws is significant, as it redefines landlord responsibilities and establishes clearer guidelines for addressing tenant displacement. Landlords are mandated to provide notice when a unit becomes habitable again, and tenants are given a right of first refusal to reoccupy their homes. This can potentially lead to increased accountability for landlords, as they must navigate new protocols concerning tenant safety and relocation, thereby influencing the overall rental market dynamics across Pennsylvania.

Summary

House Bill 734 seeks to amend Pennsylvania's Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951 by clarifying landlord duties concerning tenant safety and establishing protocols for tenant relocation when rental units become uninhabitable. The bill introduces definitions for 'temporarily displaced tenant' and 'permanently displaced tenant,' providing specific protections for tenants who must vacate their homes due to safety concerns. By emphasizing the landlord's responsibility to ensure habitable conditions, the bill aims to enhance tenant rights and safety in multi-dwelling premises.

Sentiment

General sentiment surrounding the bill appears to be positive among tenant advocacy groups who support enhanced tenant protections. They argue that the measures outlined in the bill reflect a growing recognition of tenants' rights and the need for home safety standards. However, there may be concerns from landlords regarding the financial and administrative implications of these new requirements, highlighting a division in sentiment between tenant supporters and property owners.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise around the logistics of tenant relocation, particularly regarding the costs and responsibilities associated with moving tenants' belongings and ensuring timely notifications. Critics might argue that the requirements for landlords could impose undue burdens, particularly on smaller property owners. The exceptions laid out for certain landlords also raise questions about who the protections truly benefit, as there are delineations based on the number of units managed and the circumstances of property condemnation.