Does Arizona have an implied warranty of habitability?

Statute — no independent court-created warranty operates alongside it. The duty comes from the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, A.R.S. title 33, chapter 10, and principally from section 33-1324. No Arizona court has created a separate implied warranty of habitability for leases: the Arizona decisions using that phrase are construction-defect cases running from builders and sellers to home buyers, and they have no application to a tenancy.

How long does a landlord have to make repairs in Arizona?

5 days. Five days is the health-and-safety track and it is a deadline to remedy, not a window to start work. For noncompliance with section 33-1324 materially affecting health and safety, the tenant delivers written notice specifying the acts and omissions and stating that the rental agreement will terminate on a date not less than five days after receipt if the breach is not remedied in five days; for a material noncompliance with the rental agreement generally the same notice runs on ten days.

Can a tenant repair and deduct in Arizona?

Yes — authorized by statute — Limit: The reasonable cost of compliance must be less than three hundred dollars or an amount equal to one-half of the monthly rent, whichever amount is greater — so on rent of $1,600 the ceiling is $800, and $300 is the operative number only where rent is under $600. The statute says less than, not up to, so a cost landing exactly on the figure is outside the section on the face of the text.

Can a tenant withhold rent for repair problems in Arizona?

Only on conditions that commonly defeat it — see this page — How: withholding raised as a defense once the landlord sues — No Arizona statute lets a tenant withhold rent on their own over the condition of the premises, and there is no court registry or agency escrow program. What Arizona provides is a counterclaim: in an action for possession based on nonpayment, or an action for rent where the tenant is in possession, the tenant may counterclaim for anything recoverable under the rental agreement or the chapter.

Can a landlord retaliate against a tenant who complains about repairs in Arizona?

Protected by a general retaliation statute — Evidence of a complaint within six months before the alleged act of retaliation creates a presumption that the landlord's conduct was retaliatory. The window runs backward from the landlord's act, and it is a presumption rather than an outer limit on claims.

Can a lease make the tenant responsible for repairs in Arizona?

Repairs may be delegated only within uniform-act-style limits. A rental agreement may not provide that the tenant waives or forgoes rights or remedies under the chapter, and a prohibited provision is unenforceable; a landlord who deliberately uses a rental agreement containing provisions known to be prohibited owes the tenant actual damages plus up to two months' periodic rent. The only permitted shifting is the narrow delegation in section 33-1324(C) and (D).

What does Arizona law require a landlord to repair?

Verified August 30, 2026 All Arizona topics →

Enacted but not yet in force. This page reflects the law in force today. The following measures have been signed and take effect on the dates shown:

HB 2244 (2026), Ch. 194 — Already CHAPTERED but not yet effective: on September 12, 2026, ARS 12-1567 and 22-247 gain a tenant remedy after an eviction judgment is paid — if the tenant files a motion to compel satisfaction of the judgment and the landlord does not respond within 15 days, the filing fee is waived, no hearing is held, the judgment is deemed satisfied on the tenant's proof of payment, and the court may seal records of the eviction action under ARS 33-1379. Status: Approved 2026-06-19; effective 2026-09-12 (the session's general effective date; the chapter carries no effective-date clause of its own). The answers shown do not yet reflect it. (checked August 12, 2026).
SB 1426 (2026), Ch. 69 — Already CHAPTERED but not yet effective: on September 12, 2026, ARS 12-1173 gains a separate forcible-detainer track for unauthorized occupants of residential property. The act states it 'does not apply to or modify the rights and remedies available to landlords and tenants pursuant to title 33, chapter 10,' so the tenant eviction rules on this page are unchanged by it. Status: Approved 2026-05-29; effective 2026-09-12 (general effective date). No figure on this page changes. (checked August 12, 2026).

Arizona requires a landlord to make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to keep a rented home fit and habitable, to keep the electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems in good and safe working order, and to supply running water, hot water, reasonable heat, and cooling where cooling units are installed and offered.

Cited to A.R.S. § 33-1324 (landlord to maintain fit premises) (A)-(D) and 12 more cited sources · Verified August 30, 2026

The duty is entirely statutory — the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act — and it carries a building-code limb that governs wherever the code is stricter than the Act's own list. After written notice, a tenant may end the lease in five days for a health-and-safety failure or ten days for another breach of the rental agreement, may sue for damages and an injunction while staying put, or may have a repair done by a licensed contractor and deduct the cost up to the greater of $300 or half a month's rent. There is no right to withhold rent: the condition is raised as a counterclaim and a defense in the landlord's possession case, where the court may — after notice and a hearing — order undisputed rent deposited with it. Retaliating against a tenant who complains to a code agency or to the landlord is barred, with a presumption that runs six months and only two exceptions.

Arizona habitability & repairs at a glance

Where the duty comes from	Statute — no independent court-created warranty operates alongside it
Duty source details	The duty comes from the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, A.R.S. title 33, chapter 10, and principally from section 33-1324. No Arizona court has created a separate implied warranty of habitability for leases: the Arizona decisions using that phrase are construction-defect cases running from builders and sellers to home buyers, and they have no application to a tenancy. Arizona case law does real work on the remedy side, though — Thomas v. Goudreault (Ct. App. 1989) holds that a breach of the Act sounds in tort, that damages for mental suffering need no showing of fault beyond the breach, and that the essential-services section is not an exclusive remedy.
Who is covered	Statewide — no coverage split
Where the repair standards live	The statute itself lists specific standards
What must be kept in repair	Section 33-1324(A) lists six duties: comply with applicable building codes materially affecting health and safety as prescribed in section 9-1303; make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition; keep common areas clean and safe; maintain in good and safe working order all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air-conditioning and other facilities and appliances, including elevators, supplied or required to be supplied by the landlord; provide and arrange removal of waste receptacles; and supply running water, reasonable amounts of hot water, reasonable heat, and reasonable air-conditioning or cooling where such units are installed and offered. The code limb is the one most readers miss. Section 9-1303 defines a condition materially affecting occupants' health and safety through thirteen enumerated heads, and they reach well past the Act's own list — inadequate heating and cooling, infestation of insects, vermin or rodents, faulty weather protection, structural hazards, defective wiring and plumbing, missing fire detection required by law, inadequate exits, and unhealthy conditions under the building code. Section 33-1324(B) then makes the code duty govern wherever it is greater than any other duty in the section. Bedbug control sits in its own section with its own duties and remedies and is not part of this one.
Heat standard type	A duty to supply heat or maintain temperatures while the unit is occupied
Heat standard details	The Act states no indoor temperature figure. Section 33-1324(A)(6) requires the landlord to supply running water and reasonable amounts of hot water at all times, reasonable heat, and reasonable air-conditioning or cooling where such units are installed and offered, when required by seasonal weather conditions. The duty falls away where the building is not required by law to be equipped for that purpose, or where the heat, cooling or hot water is generated by an installation in the tenant's exclusive control supplied by a direct public utility connection. A second and unconditional duty sits alongside it: section 33-1324(A)(4) requires heating, ventilating and air-conditioning equipment supplied or required to be supplied by the landlord to be maintained in good and safe working order, with no seasonal trigger.
Headline repair day count	5 days
Notice and repair-window rules	Five days is the health-and-safety track and it is a deadline to remedy, not a window to start work. For noncompliance with section 33-1324 materially affecting health and safety, the tenant delivers written notice specifying the acts and omissions and stating that the rental agreement will terminate on a date not less than five days after receipt if the breach is not remedied in five days; for a material noncompliance with the rental agreement generally the same notice runs on ten days. If the landlord adequately remedies the breach before the date stated in the notice, the agreement does not terminate, and the tenant may not terminate for a condition caused by the tenant, a member of the tenant's family, or another person on the premises with the tenant's consent. Two other clocks run on their own triggers: repair-and-deduct requires written notice of the tenant's intention to correct the condition and a wait of ten days, or as promptly thereafter as conditions require in case of emergency — an extension of the landlord's time, not a shortening of the tenant's wait; and the essential-services remedies require only reasonable notice, with no day count stated.
Repair and deduct	Yes — authorized by statute — Limit: The reasonable cost of compliance must be less than three hundred dollars or an amount equal to one-half of the monthly rent, whichever amount is greater — so on rent of $1,600 the ceiling is $800, and $300 is the operative number only where rent is under $600. The statute says less than, not up to, so a cost landing exactly on the figure is outside the section on the face of the text. There is no frequency limit of any kind: no per-repair count, no annual cap, no monthly aggregate. The cap is purely per repair. — The tenant notifies the landlord in writing of an intention to correct the condition at the landlord's expense. If the landlord fails to comply within ten days, or as promptly thereafter as conditions require in case of emergency, the tenant may cause the work to be done by a licensed contractor — there is no tenant self-repair route in Arizona — and then deduct the actual and reasonable cost from rent, but only after submitting to the landlord both an itemized statement and a waiver of lien. The remedy is unavailable where the condition was caused by the tenant, the tenant's family, or another person on the premises with the tenant's consent, and where the condition repaired is not a breach of the fit and habitable condition of the premises. A tenant who proceeds under the essential-services section instead gives up this remedy as to that same breach.
Rent withholding or escrow	Only on conditions that commonly defeat it — see this page — How: withholding raised as a defense once the landlord sues — No Arizona statute lets a tenant withhold rent on their own over the condition of the premises, and there is no court registry or agency escrow program. What Arizona provides is a counterclaim: in an action for possession based on nonpayment, or an action for rent where the tenant is in possession, the tenant may counterclaim for anything recoverable under the rental agreement or the chapter. The court may then, after notice and hearing, order the tenant to pay into court all or part of the undisputed rent accrued and rent accruing after that — permissive, at the court's discretion, and reaching only rent that is not itself contested. The court determines what each party is owed, the party owed a net amount is paid first out of the money deposited and the balance by the other party, and judgment for possession goes to the tenant if no rent remains due or if the tenant acted in good faith and satisfies a rent judgment entered for the landlord. A tenant not in possession may counterclaim without paying any rent into court. A tenant who simply stops paying, outside this structure, is in ordinary nonpayment.
Termination over habitability failures	Yes — a statute states the right — After written notice and an unremedied five-day health-and-safety breach or ten-day rental-agreement breach, the rental agreement terminates as stated in the notice and the landlord must return all security recoverable under the deposit section. Termination is not the tenant's only option: damages and injunctive relief for the same noncompliance are expressly in addition to it, so a tenant who wants to stay is not out of remedies. Fire or casualty is separate — where damage substantially impairs enjoyment of the unit the tenant may vacate immediately and notify the landlord in writing within fourteen days of an intention to terminate, in which case the agreement ends as of the date of vacating; or, if continued occupancy is lawful, vacate the unusable part, in which case rent liability is reduced in proportion to the reduction in the unit's fair rental value.
Essential-service remedies	Yes — distinct statutory remedies for essential-service failures — Where the landlord deliberately or negligently fails to supply running water, gas or electrical service, reasonable amounts of hot water or heat, air-conditioning or cooling where such units are installed and offered, or essential services, the tenant gives reasonable notice specifying the breach and then picks one of three routes. The first is to procure reasonable amounts of hot water, running water, heat and essential services during the failure and deduct their actual reasonable cost from rent, with no cap stated; where the failure is due to the landlord's unpaid utility bill and the tenant cannot switch the account, the tenants may arrange with the utility to pay the bill after written notice to the landlord and deduct what they paid. The second is damages measured by the reduction in the unit's fair rental value. The third is to procure reasonable substitute housing, which excuses rent for the period of the failure and lets the tenant recover housing costs above the excused rent up to twenty-five per cent of that excused rent — and, where the failure was deliberate, the actual and reasonable cost or fair and reasonable value of the substitute housing up to one full periodic rent, on top of the excusal. Two limits matter. Choosing this route bars the termination and repair-and-deduct sections as to that breach, except for damages that accrued before the choice was made. And these rights do not include the right to repair: this section buys a service, never a fix to the equipment. A landlord may not terminate utility services provided as part of the rental agreement except as necessary for repairs or on a lawful eviction, and may not transfer responsibility for them to the tenant after the agreement is signed without the tenant's written consent; a violation carries damages, costs, reasonable attorney fees and injunctive relief.
Retaliation protection	Protected by a general retaliation statute — Evidence of a complaint within six months before the alleged act of retaliation creates a presumption that the landlord's conduct was retaliatory. The window runs backward from the landlord's act, and it is a presumption rather than an outer limit on claims. It does not arise at all if the tenant made the complaint after notice of termination of the rental agreement — note that this is any termination notice, not only an eviction filing. — A landlord who retaliates owes the tenant the remedies of the unlawful-ouster section — an amount not more than two months' periodic rent or twice the actual damages sustained, whichever is greater — and the tenant also has a defense to an action for possession. The presumption is defined inside the statute and it is mandatory until met: the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact presumed unless and until evidence is introduced that would support a finding of its nonexistence. Arizona's list of things a landlord may still do is unusually short. Only two exceptions are stated: the landlord may bring a possession action where the code violation was caused primarily by the tenant's household's lack of reasonable care, or where the tenant is in default in rent — and maintaining that action does not release the landlord from liability for damages and injunctive relief. There is no owner-occupancy exception, no remodel or demolition exception, no sale exception, and no safe harbor for a permitted rent increase. — Complaining to a governmental agency charged with enforcing a building or housing code about a violation affecting the premises that materially affects health and safety; complaining to the landlord of a violation of the maintenance section — a direct-to-landlord limb that many states leave out; organizing or becoming a member of a tenants' union or similar organization; and complaining to a governmental agency charged with enforcing the wage-price stabilization act. Note what is absent: the statute does not in terms protect a tenant merely for exercising a remedy under the chapter, so a tenant who serves a repair-and-deduct notice is protected as a person who has complained to the landlord of a maintenance violation rather than by a remedy-use limb of its own.
Damages, penalties, and defenses	The tenant may recover damages and obtain injunctive relief for any noncompliance with the rental agreement or the maintenance section, and that right is expressly in addition to the right to terminate. Unlawful ouster, exclusion, or willful interruption of electric, gas, water or other essential service lets the tenant recover possession or terminate and, either way, recover not more than two months' periodic rent or twice the actual damages sustained, whichever is greater — the same measure the retaliation section imports. A deliberately used prohibited lease provision costs the landlord actual damages plus up to two months' periodic rent. Fees run three ways: a written rental agreement may provide for prevailing-party fees, and a one-way landlord-fee clause is void; a prevailing party in a contested forcible detainer action is eligible for fees under A.R.S. section 12-341.01 whether or not the lease says so, which is the hook for a tenant who defends a possession case on the condition of the premises; and fees are expressly available for a landlord's unlawful termination or transfer of utility services. The maintenance-remedy section itself contains no fee provision. On top of the statutory measures, Thomas v. Goudreault holds that a breach of the Act supports tort recovery for mental suffering, anguish, discomfort or annoyance, and that whether the landlord caused the condition intentionally or negligently is not relevant to the tenant's actual damages. The landlord's stated defenses are conditions caused by the tenant, the tenant's family or a person on the premises with the tenant's consent; a repair that is not a breach of the fit and habitable condition; the tenant's default in rent and tenant-caused code violations in the retaliation section; and, after a good-faith sale to a bona fide purchaser and written notice of the conveyance to the tenant, the former owner's release from chapter liability for later events.
Can the duty be waived or shifted	Repairs may be delegated only within uniform-act-style limits
Waiver and delegation rules	A rental agreement may not provide that the tenant waives or forgoes rights or remedies under the chapter, and a prohibited provision is unenforceable; a landlord who deliberately uses a rental agreement containing provisions known to be prohibited owes the tenant actual damages plus up to two months' periodic rent. The only permitted shifting is the narrow delegation in section 33-1324(C) and (D). For a single-family residence, the parties may agree in writing, supported by adequate consideration, that the tenant will perform the waste-removal and water-heat-cooling duties and specified repairs, maintenance, alterations and remodeling. For any other dwelling unit, only specified repairs, maintenance, alterations or remodeling may be shifted, and only by a separate signed writing supported by adequate consideration that does not diminish the landlord's obligations to other tenants. Both routes require good faith and neither may be used to evade the landlord's obligations, and neither may reach work needed to cure a failure of the code duty or of the fit-and-habitable duty — those two are the things Arizona never lets a landlord hand to a tenant.
Leading court decisions	Thomas v. Goudreault, 163 Ariz. 159, 786 P.2d 1010 (App. 1989) — A landlord's violation of the maintenance duties in the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act gives rise to tort recovery for mental distress, and recovery is not limited to culpable violations — whether the condition was caused intentionally or negligently is not relevant to the tenant's actual damages, so compensatory damages may include mental suffering, anguish, discomfort or annoyance. The court also held that the essential-services section does not create exclusive remedies, leaving a tenant free to sue for consequential harm such as spoiled food or illness, and upheld a retaliation verdict on evidence that the landlord threatened eviction while the tenants were current on rent.
Local rules	Local codes do real work here. The Act's first maintenance duty is compliance with applicable building codes materially affecting health and safety as A.R.S. section 9-1303 defines that phrase, and section 33-1324(B) makes that duty govern wherever it is greater than any other duty in the section — so a stricter municipal standard raises the state duty. What local law does not do is change the remedies: no Arizona remedy is gated on a written finding by a local housing, building or health official, unlike the schemes in several neighboring states. Section 9-1303 itself sits in the title governing municipal regulation of residential rental property, and its list is the definition of the code duty rather than a definition of the five-day notice trigger.

Cite this page: "Landlord Atlas, Arizona Habitability & Repair Laws (verified August 30, 2026), landlordatlas.com/laws/habitability/arizona/" — free to cite and quote with a link (how these records are verified). Everything above is cited in the citations section below.

Notes and caveats

The repair-and-deduct ceiling is a greater-of figure — Older summaries still describe Arizona's repair-and-deduct cap as a flat $300. The statute says the reasonable cost of compliance must be less than three hundred dollars, or an amount equal to one-half of the monthly rent, whichever amount is greater — so the $300 is a floor that only bites at rents under $600, and on a $1,600 rent the ceiling is $800. Two details travel with it: the work must be done by a licensed contractor, and both an itemized statement and a waiver of lien must reach the landlord before anything is deducted.
Cooling is a duty, and it has two different triggers — Arizona is one of the few states to name cooling in the maintenance duty, and it names it twice with different conditions. Air-conditioning equipment supplied or required to be supplied by the landlord must be kept in good and safe working order without qualification. The separate duty to supply cooling applies only where such units are installed and offered — a two-part condition, so a unit that is physically present but was never held out as part of the tenancy is arguably outside it — and only when seasonal weather conditions require. There is no statutory indoor temperature standard: a 2026 bill proposing an 82-degree cooling ceiling and a 68-degree heating floor was introduced and did not become law.
The procure-and-deduct list leaves cooling out — The essential-services section is triggered by a failure to supply cooling, but the procure-and-deduct option inside it lists only hot water, running water, heat and essential services. On the face of the text a tenant whose cooling fails reaches procure-and-deduct only if cooling counts as an essential service; the reduction-in-value and substitute-housing options are available either way. The repair-and-deduct section has no such gap — it reaches any breach of the maintenance duty, cooling included, subject to its cap and its licensed-contractor requirement.
Five ways rent moves, and none of them is withholding — Arizona has no rent-withholding right and no escrow, but it has five separate routes by which rent is reduced, deducted, excused or held, and they are constantly collapsed into one another: deduct after a repair; deduct after procuring a service; rent excused while the tenant is in substitute housing, with the excess housing cost and the deliberate-breach step-up on top; rent liability reduced in proportion to lost rental value after a fire or casualty; and the counterclaim with a discretionary order to deposit undisputed rent with the court. Describing Arizona as a withholding state is wrong; describing it as a state with no rent relief is equally wrong.
Public housing sits outside the Act entirely — The Act's exclusions list takes out occupancy in or operation of public housing conducted under state law or under any federal law or regulation. Arizona public-housing tenants therefore have no section 33-1324 maintenance duty, no repair-and-deduct, and no statutory retaliation bar; their protections come from federal law and the lease. The other exclusions are the usual ones — institutional residence, occupancy under a contract of sale, fraternal or social organizations, transient hotel or motel stays, employee-managers, and condominium owners or cooperative proprietary lessees — all subject to the clause that they do not apply where the arrangement was created to avoid the chapter.
The fourteen days is not a repair clock — The fourteen-day figure sometimes attached to Arizona repairs comes from the fire-and-casualty section, where it is the deadline for a tenant who has already moved out to notify the landlord in writing of an intention to terminate. It is a post-move-out notice deadline, not a period the landlord has to fix anything.
Choosing the essential-services route closes the others — A tenant who proceeds under the essential-services section may not proceed under the notice-and-terminate section or the repair-and-deduct section as to that same breach, except for damages that accrued before the choice. The same section says in terms that its rights do not include the right to repair — it lets a tenant buy a service, never fix the equipment. Repairing the broken unit is repair-and-deduct territory, with its cap and its contractor requirement. Thomas v. Goudreault adds one qualification worth knowing: the election bars the statutory routes, not a separate claim for consequential harm such as spoiled food or illness.

Common questions: Arizona habitability & repairs

Each answer is the verified value from the table above, restated as a direct answer. Free to quote with a link to this page.

Does Arizona have an implied warranty of habitability?: Statute — no independent court-created warranty operates alongside it. The duty comes from the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, A.R.S. title 33, chapter 10, and principally from section 33-1324. No Arizona court has created a separate implied warranty of habitability for leases: the Arizona decisions using that phrase are construction-defect cases running from builders and sellers to home buyers, and they have no application to a tenancy.
How long does a landlord have to make repairs in Arizona?: 5 days. Five days is the health-and-safety track and it is a deadline to remedy, not a window to start work. For noncompliance with section 33-1324 materially affecting health and safety, the tenant delivers written notice specifying the acts and omissions and stating that the rental agreement will terminate on a date not less than five days after receipt if the breach is not remedied in five days; for a material noncompliance with the rental agreement generally the same notice runs on ten days.
Can a tenant repair and deduct in Arizona?: Yes — authorized by statute — Limit: The reasonable cost of compliance must be less than three hundred dollars or an amount equal to one-half of the monthly rent, whichever amount is greater — so on rent of $1,600 the ceiling is $800, and $300 is the operative number only where rent is under $600. The statute says less than, not up to, so a cost landing exactly on the figure is outside the section on the face of the text.
Can a tenant withhold rent for repair problems in Arizona?: Only on conditions that commonly defeat it — see this page — How: withholding raised as a defense once the landlord sues — No Arizona statute lets a tenant withhold rent on their own over the condition of the premises, and there is no court registry or agency escrow program. What Arizona provides is a counterclaim: in an action for possession based on nonpayment, or an action for rent where the tenant is in possession, the tenant may counterclaim for anything recoverable under the rental agreement or the chapter.
Can a landlord retaliate against a tenant who complains about repairs in Arizona?: Protected by a general retaliation statute — Evidence of a complaint within six months before the alleged act of retaliation creates a presumption that the landlord's conduct was retaliatory. The window runs backward from the landlord's act, and it is a presumption rather than an outer limit on claims.
Can a lease make the tenant responsible for repairs in Arizona?: Repairs may be delegated only within uniform-act-style limits. A rental agreement may not provide that the tenant waives or forgoes rights or remedies under the chapter, and a prohibited provision is unenforceable; a landlord who deliberately uses a rental agreement containing provisions known to be prohibited owes the tenant actual damages plus up to two months' periodic rent. The only permitted shifting is the narrow delegation in section 33-1324(C) and (D).

Citations

A.R.S. § 33-1324 (landlord to maintain fit premises) · (A)-(D) (verified 2026) Official source
A.R.S. § 9-1303 (material affect on health and safety of occupants) (verified 2026) Official source
A.R.S. § 33-1315 (prohibited provisions in rental agreements) · (A)-(C) (verified 2026) Official source
A.R.S. § 33-1361 (noncompliance by the landlord) · (A)-(D) (verified 2026) Official source
A.R.S. § 33-1363 (self-help for minor defects) · (A)-(B) (verified 2026) Official source
A.R.S. § 33-1364 (wrongful failure to supply heat, air conditioning, cooling, water, hot water or essential services) · (A)-(H) (verified 2026) Official source
A.R.S. § 33-1365 (landlord's noncompliance as defense to action for possession or rent) · (A)-(B) (verified 2026) Official source
A.R.S. § 33-1366 (fire or casualty damage) · (A)-(B) (verified 2026) Official source
A.R.S. § 33-1367 (tenant's remedies for landlord's unlawful ouster, exclusion or diminution of services) (verified 2026) Official source
A.R.S. § 33-1381 (retaliatory conduct prohibited) · (A)-(C) (verified 2026) Official source
A.R.S. § 33-1308 (exclusions from application of chapter) (verified 2026) Official source
A.R.S. § 33-1305 (administration of remedies; enforcement) · (A) (verified 2026) Official source
A.R.S. § 33-1325 (limitation of liability) (verified 2026) Official source

How this record was verified: Direct reading of the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act on the Legislature's official statutes site — A.R.S. title 33, chapter 10, with sections 33-1304, 33-1305, 33-1308, 33-1315, 33-1324, 33-1325, 33-1332, 33-1361, 33-1363, 33-1364, 33-1365, 33-1366, 33-1367 and 33-1381 each read end to end — together with A.R.S. section 9-1303, the definition the maintenance duty's code limb points at, and the Legislature's complete section list for title 33. The Legislature's own chaptered session-law tables for the 2025 and 2026 regular sessions were read in their entirety and the two landlord-tenant candidates were traced to their enrolled acts, which is how the currency of the statutes site's September 2025 text was established. Thomas v. Goudreault, 163 Ariz. 159, 786 P.2d 1010 (App. 1989), was read end to end in the official reporter text.