Plaintiff Housing Authority of Joliet (Housing Authority)filed this forcible entry and detainer action seeking to ejectdefendant Delores Chapman from one of its low-income rental unitsbecause of a violation of her lease. The trial court found infavor of Delores; the Housing Authority appealed. We reverse andhold that local public housing authorities are given the discretionto terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the householdor guest causes a violation of the lease by engaging in drug-related criminal activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew,or should have known, of the drug-related activity.

The facts in this case are straightforward. In July of 1997,Delores signed a lease with the Housing Authority for a three-bedroom unit. Delores listed herself as head of household on thelease and listed her 10-year-old daughter and 16-year-old son asmembers of the household. The lease included two addenda, whichwere signed separately. Section VII of the lease, which is listedon one of the addenda, is entitled "Obligations andResponsibilities of Tenant." Subparagraph A.37 of section VIIprovides that "[t]enant, any member of the Tenant household, aguest, or another person under the Tenant's control shall notengage in or permit: (A) Any drug-related criminal activityoccurring on or off Housing Authority premises." A breach of thisportion of the lease is grounds for eviction.

In February of 2000, Delores' son, who was then 19 years oldand still residing in the unit, was arrested upon leaving theHousing Authority's property for driving on a suspended license. Three bags of marijuana were found in his possession. The HousingAuthority subsequently filed an action against Delores in order toterminate her possession of the unit. After a trial, the courtentered a judgment in favor of Delores and against the HousingAuthority. The court determined that Delores' son acted withouther knowledge, consent or participation and that at the time of theincident he was an adult child and not under her control. TheHousing Authority appealed.

The Housing Authority contends that the trial court erred whenit determined that the lease was not violated because Delores' sonacted without her knowledge, consent or participation and becausehe was not under Delores' control when he committed the drug-related criminal activity. This court reviews the trial court'sconstruction of a lease de novo. Plambeck v. Greystone Management& Columbia National Trust Co., 281 Ill. App. 3d 260, 666 N.E.2d 670(1996).

Title 42 U.S.C.A.