the term of the renting). “ ‘Habitability’ is a term of art, and an apartment need not be literally uninhabitable to be in violation of the implied warranty. The ... Sanitary Code ... draws a distinction between a condition, which makes a unit ‘unfit for human habitation (defined as a condition justifying condemnation), 105 Code Mass. Regs. §410.022 (1978), and a condition which ‘may endanger or materially impair the health or safety and well-being of an occupant’ (defined as a condition which may expose those interests to harm), 105 Code Mass. Regs. §410.023 (1978). The latter condition is sufficient to violate the warranty of habitability.” Altschuler v. Boston Rent Board, 12 Mass.App.Ct. 452, 457 (1981) citing, Boston Housing Authy. v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184, 200 n.15 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Id. at 200 n.16. A rented dwelling need not
holding that proof that code violations exist which may endanger or materially impair    would constitute evidence of a material breach    holding that after jury findings of dual breach unchallenged finding that defendants breach was not excused based on prior material breach of plaintiff constituted implicit finding that there was no material breach by plaintiff holding that ijnadmissible evidence may be material if the evidence would have led to admissible evidence holding that mere delay in payment for a while would not be a material breach holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract