Quick Reference: New Hampshire Nonpayment Eviction at a Glance

A New Hampshire landlord serves a Demand for Rent, follows it with a 7-Day Eviction Notice, waits for the notice period to expire, purchases and files the Landlord and Tenant Writ, pays the filing fee, has the sheriff serve it, and works through the return day to a hearing on the merits.

On the morning of that hearing, the tenant hands over a certified check.

Under RSA 540:9, I(a) that payment defeats the eviction, provided it covers everything the section requires. Not because the landlord did anything wrong. The tenant's right to cure runs at any time prior to the hearing on the merits, not to the expiry of the seven-day notice.

A great deal of published New Hampshire guidance still says the cure window closes when the notice expires. That was the law before 2001. The current section has been amended twice since, most recently in 2021, and the deadline now sits at the courthouse door.

Understanding where that door actually is, what has to be paid to walk through it, and the one provision that can close it permanently, is what separates a nonpayment case that resolves cleanly from one that consumes a filing fee and produces nothing.

A scope note before going further. New Hampshire distinguishes restricted from nonrestricted property under RSA 540:1-a. Nonrestricted property includes all nonresidential property plus three residential categories: single-family houses where the owner owns no more than 3 at any one time, rental units in an owner-occupied building of 4 dwelling units or fewer, and single-family houses acquired by banks or other mortgagees through foreclosure. Restricted property is all other residential property.

The distinction matters because the good-cause grounds in RSA 540:2, II, including nonpayment at II(a), constrain the owner of restricted property. Under RSA 540:2, I, the owner of nonrestricted property may terminate any tenancy by notice without needing one of those grounds. RSA 540:1-a, IV also excludes several occupancy types from the chapter entirely, including transient rooming house stays under 90 consecutive days, hotels and vacation rentals, student dormitories and licensed facilities, and tenancies under RSA 540-B or RSA 540-C.

This article follows the nonpayment route under RSA 540:2, II(a). Confirm the property's classification before assuming which framework applies.

Step 1: The Demand for Rent Is a Separate Document

New Hampshire nonpayment cases use two tenant-facing documents, and conflating them is the most common procedural error.

The Demand for Rent establishes the ground. Under RSA 540:2, II(a), the ground is "neglect or refusal to pay rent due and in arrears, upon demand." The demand is what converts unpaid rent into a statutory ground.

It may be served any time after rent becomes due, and either before or simultaneously with the eviction notice.

Two separate sections govern the demand. RSA 540:4 sets the timing: the demand is sufficient if made on the tenant at any time after the rent becomes due and prior to or simultaneously with service of the eviction notice. RSA 540:8 sets the amount: the demand may be made when rent is due or while it is in arrears, but the lessor shall not demand a greater sum than the whole rent in arrears when demand is made. A demand that inflates the figure, or reaches forward to rent not yet in arrears, is a demand for a greater sum than the section allows.

The 7-Day Eviction Notice sets the date by which the tenant must vacate before the landlord can proceed to court. It is not itself a court order, and the tenant cannot be removed without one. Under RSA 540:3, II, for all residential tenancies 30 days' notice is sufficient in all cases, except that 7 days' notice is sufficient where the reason for termination is one of the grounds in RSA 540:2, II(a), (b), (d) or (h). Nonpayment is (a).

Note that framing. Seven days is the exception, not the default. Get the ground wrong and you are on a thirty-day clock.

The Judicial Branch publishes both forms: the Demand for Rent (NHJB-3040-D) and the Eviction Notice (NHJB-3041-D). Landlords are not required to use them, but any substitute must comply with RSA 540:3 and RSA 540:3-a.

Step 2: What the Eviction Notice Must Actually Say

Two content requirements sit in RSA 540:3, and both matter to a valid nonpayment notice.

Specificity, under subsection III. The eviction notice shall state with specificity the reason for the eviction. For nonpayment, that means the amount owed and the periods it covers, not a general assertion that rent is unpaid.

The cure disclosure, under subsection IV. If the eviction notice is based on nonpayment, the notice shall inform the tenant of his or her right, if any, to avoid the eviction by payment of the arrearages and liquidated damages in accordance with RSA 540:9.

Read the words "if any." The disclosure obligation is not absolute; it tracks whether the tenant actually has a right to cure, which is where the three-strikes provision below becomes relevant. But the safe practice is to include the disclosure unless you have confirmed the tenant has exhausted the right.

Service, under RSA 540:5, is by personal delivery or by leaving the notice at the tenant's last and usual place of abode. Mail is supplemental or lease-required, not a standalone method of residential service.

Step 3: The Cure Right Runs to the Hearing, Not the Notice

This is the provision that defines New Hampshire nonpayment practice, and it is the one most often reported incorrectly.

RSA 540:9, I provides that any possessory action based solely on nonpayment of rent shall be dismissed if both of two things occur.

First, the tenant pays. Under I(a), the tenant, at any time prior to the hearing on the merits, pays to the landlord:

• All rent due and owing through the time of such payment, plus

• Other lawful charges contained in the lease, plus

• $15 liquidated damages, plus

• Any filing fee and service charges incurred by the landlord in connection with the possessory action

The cure amount is therefore not simply the arrears. It grows as the case proceeds, and it includes the landlord's own filing and service costs. A tenant who tenders only the back rent has not cured.

The form of payment is specified. Payment must be in cash, certified check, prepaid money order, electronic transfer, or other guaranteed or immediately drawable funds, including any form of payment specified in RSA 540:9-a, I. A personal check is not among them.

Second, and this is the part managers miss, the landlord has to do something. Under I(b), the landlord also submits prior to the hearing date a receipt of such payment to court, and states in writing that a copy of the same receipt has been forwarded to the tenant prior to the time and date of the hearing on the merits.

And failing to file it does not save the eviction. The statute continues: if the landlord fails to file such receipt, the hearing on the merits shall proceed, and if the tenant proves that payment has been made in accordance with subparagraph (a), the case shall be dismissed.

So the landlord's filing obligation is real, but withholding the receipt is not a strategy. It converts an administrative dismissal into a contested hearing the landlord is likely to lose, having incurred the hearing cost.

Why the older rule still circulates. An earlier version of RSA 540:9 required payment "before the expiration of the notice." That version was replaced effective 1 January 2001 and the section was amended again effective 23 July 2021. Guidance quoting the expiry-of-notice deadline is quoting law that has not been current for a quarter century.

Step 4: The Three-Strikes Limit

RSA 540:9, II is a single sentence, and it is the landlord's principal protection against a tenant who treats the cure right as a payment plan.

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph I, a tenant may not defeat an eviction for nonpayment of rent by use of this section more than 3 times within a 12-month period.

Three points a manager should take from it.

It is a 12-month period, not a calendar year. Some published guidance says "one calendar year," which was the older wording. The current text is a rolling 12-month period, which means the count moves with each new case rather than resetting every January.

It counts uses, not simply late payments. The limit applies where a tenant defeats a nonpayment eviction by use of RSA 540:9. A tenant who paid rent late without invoking the section in an eviction proceeding has not, on the face of the statute, used it. For a manager, that means the relevant history is the tenant's prior use of the statutory cure right in nonpayment cases, not the rent ledger.

It interacts with the notice. RSA 540:3, IV requires the notice to inform the tenant of the right to cure "if any." Where a tenant has already used the section three times in the preceding twelve months, the question of whether a cure right exists on the fourth occasion is exactly what subsection II addresses.

That makes the three-strikes count a piece of information you need before drafting the notice, not after the tenant tenders payment.

Step 5: Filing and the Court Stage

After the eviction notice period expires and the tenant remains, the landlord commences a possessory action by filing a Landlord and Tenant Writ in the Circuit Court District Division for the jurisdiction where the property is located, under RSA 540:13.

Two procedural points from the Judicial Branch's own guidance are worth building into the workflow.

The writ is bought from the court. It must be purchased, completed except for the return date, filed, and the filing fee paid prior to service of process.

Both required documents must be in place before filing. The Demand for Rent, where applicable, must have been served before or simultaneously with the Eviction Notice under RSA 540:4, and the eviction notice period must have expired before the landlord files the writ.

The return day is not the hearing date. Under RSA 540:13, III, the writ of summons and the accompanying court notice are returnable 7 days from the date of service by the sheriff. If the tenant wishes to contest, they must file an appearance no later than that return day. Under RSA 540:13, V, where the tenant files an appearance a hearing is scheduled within 10 days of that filing, with notice mailed to the parties no fewer than 6 days before it, subject to additional time for discovery under subsection IV. Where the tenant fails to file an appearance or fails to appear, the court mails a notice of default at least 3 days before issuing the writ of possession.

That sequence is why the RSA 540:9 cure right has room to operate. The gap between service and the hearing on the merits is where a tenant's payment lands.

And the money judgment is capped. Under RSA 540:13, III, the writ gives the landlord the option of claiming unpaid rent, but any decision on a money judgment in the possessory action is limited to a maximum of $1,500, without precluding a later claim elsewhere for the balance. The same subsection allows the tenant's setoff or counterclaim to defeat possession where it equals or exceeds the rent and lawful charges owed.

And there is a federal-law compliance affidavit. The Judicial Branch lists an Affidavit of Compliance with Federal Law among the forms required to start a Landlord and Tenant case. The affidavit addresses whether the property is covered by the federal CARES Act and, where applicable, the federal notice requirements. Check the current form and filing checklist on the Judicial Branch site before filing.

What Else Can Become a Nonpayment Case

Two provisions convert other disputes into nonpayment grounds, which is worth knowing because they inherit the entire RSA 540:9 cure structure.

Bed bug remediation costs. Under RSA 540:13-e, II, the landlord bears the reasonable costs of remediating a bed bug infestation but may recover them where the tenant is responsible. Under III, where the landlord bills the tenant in writing and the tenant has not paid or entered a repayment agreement within 30 days of completion of remediation, that failure shall be considered grounds for eviction for nonpayment of rent pursuant to RSA 540:2, II(a).

But the evidentiary burden runs against the landlord, and it is a double burden. Under IV, in such an eviction the landlord bears the burden of proving both that the tenant was responsible for the infestation and that the landlord offered the tenant the opportunity to enter into a reasonable repayment agreement. Offering the agreement is not a courtesy step; it is something you have to prove.

There is one presumption in the landlord's favor. Under V(a), there is a rebuttable presumption that the tenant is responsible if, during the 6 months before the tenancy began and throughout it, there were no reports to the landlord or a municipal health or housing authority of bed bugs in the tenant's unit or in adjacent units or those directly above or below, or by previous tenants in a single-family home. The tenant's own report does not count as a report for that purpose.

Under V(b) the court weighs the totality of the evidence, expressly including the extent of bed bugs elsewhere in the building before and during the tenancy, which unit they were first discovered in, what remediation the landlord had previously undertaken in that unit and its neighbours, and whether the tenant had bed bugs in their previous dwelling.

That list is effectively a records checklist. A landlord who cannot show a clean six-month history for the unit and its neighbours has lost the presumption before the hearing starts.

Vouchers and government promises to pay. Under RSA 540:9-a, I, a rental payment or partial rental payment tendered by the tenant in the form of a written promise to pay on the tenant's behalf by the state, a county or a municipality of this state, or by any organization which disburses federal or state funds, and any application by a municipality of amounts owed to it by a landlord under RSA 165:4-a, constitutes payment by the tenant of the amount represented in the voucher.

The provision is wider than "municipal vouchers" suggests. It reaches state and county promises and any organization disbursing federal or state funds.

But it carries an express limit. The same paragraph provides that the section shall not be construed to obligate a landlord to accept partial rental payments. So a qualifying voucher counts as payment of the amount it represents, without requiring the landlord to accept a part payment of the whole sum owed.

And there are two affirmative defenses attached. Under II, in any eviction based on nonpayment it is an affirmative defense that the tenant tendered timely payment under paragraph I and it was refused, or that the tenant could have tendered timely payment had the landlord provided ordinary and reasonable verification of rental information requested by the agency.

That second defense is worth reading twice. A landlord who does not respond to an agency's verification request can hand the tenant a defense without ever refusing a payment.

The practical rule: do not reject a qualifying voucher simply because it is not cash or immediately drawable funds, and do respond promptly to agency verification requests.

Three Defenses That Kill a Nonpayment Case

The cure right is not the only thing that can end a nonpayment action. Three provisions defeat it outright, and none of them turns on whether the tenant paid.

The utility defense, RSA 540:2, VI. No tenancy shall be terminated for nonpayment of rent if the tenant was forced to take over the landlord's utility payments to prevent services the landlord agreed to provide from being terminated, and the arrears do not exceed the amount the tenant paid to maintain service, and the tenant has receipts from the utility company or other proof of payment.

All three conditions must hold, but where they do the eviction cannot proceed at all. If a tenant tells you they paid the oil bill because the landlord did not, that is not a grievance to note. It is a defense to your case.

The habitability defense, RSA 540:13-d. No possession action based on nonpayment may be maintained where the premises are in substantial violation of the fitness standards in RSA 48-A or local codes and the violation materially affects habitability, provided the tenant proves by clear and convincing evidence that, while not in arrears in rent, they gave notice of the violation to the person they customarily pay rent to; the landlord failed to correct within 14 days of receipt of written notice, or in an emergency as promptly as conditions require; the violation was not caused by the tenant or their household; and repairs were not prevented by extreme weather or the tenant's refusal of access.

Note the sequencing built into that defense: the notice has to have come before the arrears arose. A repair complaint made after rent stopped does not satisfy it.

Under subsection II, where the defense is raised the court may continue the action for up to one month to let the landlord fix the problem, requiring the tenant to pay withheld and accruing rent into court. If the violation is remedied in that window the case is dismissed and the court apportions the money. If it is not, judgment goes to the tenant and all deposited money is refunded to them.

Retaliation, RSA 540:13-a and 540:13-b. Retaliation is a defense to any residential possession action except where the tenant owes the equivalent of one week's rent or more. That carve-out largely removes it from genuine nonpayment cases, but RSA 540:13-b creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation where a possession action, rent increase or substantial alteration of the tenancy follows within 6 months of a code complaint, a completed repair, an RSA 540-A action, or the discovery of tenants meeting together.

Accepting Payment Without Losing the Case

This is the provision that pairs with RSA 540:9, and it resolves the problem every manager runs into.

Under RSA 540:13, VII, in a nonpayment case, while the possessory action is pending the landlord may accept payment of the rental arrearage without creating a new tenancy, provided the landlord informs the tenant in writing of the intention to proceed with the eviction despite accepting the payment. The landlord may alternatively decline payment and proceed.

Two consequences follow.

You do not have to refuse money to preserve the case. In many states accepting rent after a notice waives the termination. New Hampshire expressly permits acceptance, on condition of a written statement of intent to proceed.

But the writing is the condition. Accept a partial payment without it and you have no statutory protection against the waiver argument.

Read alongside RSA 540:9, the position becomes clear. A full statutory cure defeats the case. A partial payment does not, and RSA 540:13, VII lets you bank it without prejudicing the action, so long as you say so in writing at the time.

And there is a formal alternative. Under RSA 540:13-c, II, the parties may agree that no writ of possession issues if the tenant makes payments on a schedule set out in the agreement, which may incorporate arrears, future rent, court costs and service fees. The agreement is filed with the court, waives the tenant's right to appeal, and must carry a conspicuous closing paragraph in the statutory wording. Acceptance of payments under it does not establish a new tenancy, and on an affidavit of non-compliance the court issues a writ within 5 business days without further hearing, subject to the tenant's narrow objection route.

A Note on the July 2026 Good Cause Change

New Hampshire added a new termination ground effective 1 July 2026. Under RSA 540:2, II(i), for a lease with an original term of 12 months or longer, or a shorter lease renewed to a total of 12 months or longer, expiration of the lease term is a ground, provided the landlord gave at least 60 days' written notice that the lease will not be renewed and the tenant must vacate, and the landlord files a possessory action within 6 months of the lease expiring.

Two features matter even for a manager focused on nonpayment.

The statute treats this as a no-fault termination of tenancy, which RSA 540:2, VIII defines as any termination under II(i). For rental applications and tenant screening reports, a no-fault termination of tenancy is not to be considered an eviction, and the court handling it is directed to note in the documentation that the termination was at no fault of the tenant.

And it does not displace nonpayment. Where rent is genuinely unpaid, RSA 540:2, II(a) and the seven-day route remain available and remain faster.

Common New Hampshire Nonpayment Mistakes

1. Treating the eviction notice as the demand
The Demand for Rent and the 7-Day Eviction Notice are distinct documents. The demand establishes the RSA 540:2, II(a) ground.

2. Demanding more than the rent in arrears
RSA 540:8 prohibits demanding a greater sum than the whole rent in arrears at the time of demand. RSA 540:4 governs the timing, not the amount.

3. Assuming the cure window closes when the notice expires
Under RSA 540:9, I(a) it runs to the hearing on the merits. The pre-2001 rule is still widely republished.

4. Accepting only the back rent as a cure
The statutory amount includes other lawful lease charges, $15 liquidated damages, and the filing fee and service charges.

5. Accepting a personal check
The section specifies cash, certified check, prepaid money order, electronic transfer, or other guaranteed or immediately drawable funds.

6. Not filing the receipt with the court
RSA 540:9, I(b) requires it before the hearing date, with written confirmation that a copy went to the tenant.

7. Withholding the receipt hoping the eviction survives
The hearing simply proceeds, and the case is dismissed anyway if the tenant proves payment.

8. Counting the three-strikes limit by calendar year
The current text is a rolling 12-month period.

9. Omitting the cure disclosure from the notice
RSA 540:3, IV requires a nonpayment notice to inform the tenant of the right, if any, to cure under RSA 540:9.

10. Filing before the eviction notice expires
The Demand for Rent, where applicable, must already have been properly served before or simultaneously with the Eviction Notice. It is the Eviction Notice period that must have expired before the landlord files the writ.

11. Forgetting the federal affidavit
An Affidavit of Compliance with Federal Law is required in all residential evictions before requesting the writ.

12. Rejecting a qualifying voucher out of hand
Under RSA 540:9-a, I a qualifying written promise to pay by the state, a county, a municipality or an organization disbursing federal or state funds constitutes payment of the amount represented, though the section does not require a landlord to accept partial rental payments.

13. Ignoring an agency's verification request
Under RSA 540:9-a, II it is an affirmative defense that the tenant could have tendered timely payment had the landlord provided ordinary and reasonable verification of rental information requested by the agency.

14. Refusing a partial payment to avoid a waiver argument
Under RSA 540:13, VII you may accept the arrearage without creating a new tenancy, provided you inform the tenant in writing of your intention to proceed.

15. Missing the utility defense
Under RSA 540:2, VI no tenancy may be terminated for nonpayment where the tenant took over the landlord's utility payments, the arrears do not exceed that sum, and the tenant has receipts.

16. Ignoring a habitability complaint that predates the arrears
Under RSA 540:13-d a nonpayment action cannot be maintained where the premises substantially violate fitness standards and the tenant gave notice while not in arrears.

17. Billing bed bug remediation without offering a repayment agreement
Under RSA 540:13-e, IV the landlord must prove both that the tenant was responsible and that a reasonable repayment agreement was offered.

The Two Records That Decide a New Hampshire Case

New Hampshire nonpayment practice rewards a landlord who can answer two questions instantly, and punishes one who cannot.

How many times has this tenant cured in the past twelve months?

The three-strikes limit in RSA 540:9, II is the only thing standing between a landlord and an indefinite cycle of demand, notice, filing, payment on the courthouse steps, and repeat. But it only works if the count is available at the drafting stage, because it determines whether the tenant has a cure right to disclose under RSA 540:3, IV.

That count is not a rent-ledger question. It is a record of filings and their outcomes, held per tenant, running on a rolling twelve months. A complete tenant record connecting payment history with the communications and notices that went with it is what makes that answerable in seconds rather than reconstructed from files.

What is the cure figure today?

Because the amount grows through the life of the case and includes lease charges, the $15, the filing fee and service charges, the number is different on the day the notice is served and on the day of the hearing. A tenant who calls asking what to pay needs an accurate figure, and a partial tender does not cure.

That is a ledger discipline question. Rent, lawful lease charges and litigation costs have to sit together and update, which is what rent and charge tracking built on the lease terms is for.

RIOO keeps the lease and its lawful charges in Contracts & Renewals, the rent and cure ledger in Collecting Rent & Payments, and the notice and communication history in Service Request & Task Management, so both questions have an answer before the notice goes out.

Conclusion

New Hampshire looks like a fast nonpayment state, and on paper it is. Seven days' notice, a District Division filing, a hearing within weeks.

The complication is that the tenant's cure right does not expire with the notice. Under RSA 540:9, I(a) it runs to the hearing on the merits, which means a landlord can complete every step correctly and still be dismissed on the morning of the hearing. That is not a defect in the process. It is the process working as the legislature designed it.

Three things follow. The cure amount is more than the arrears, so quote it accurately and in full. The payment must be in guaranteed funds, so a personal check does not cure. And the landlord has an affirmative duty under RSA 540:9, I(b) to file the receipt with the court, which is not optional and cannot usefully be skipped.

Against all of that sits RSA 540:9, II, the three-strikes limit. Three uses in a rolling twelve months, and the tenant can no longer defeat a nonpayment eviction by using RSA 540:9. It is one of the most important provisions in the chapter for a landlord dealing with repeated nonpayment, and it is worth nothing to a manager who does not know the count.

Before the next New Hampshire nonpayment notice, the useful exercise is not to reread RSA 540:3. It is to pull the tenant's file and count how many times this has happened in the last twelve months.

This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. RSA 540:9 was amended effective 1 January 2001 and 23 July 2021, RSA 540:2, II(i) took effect 1 July 2026, the Judicial Branch's federal-law compliance affidavit addresses CARES Act covered property, and individual circumstances differ. Confirm the current text with the New Hampshire General Court and consult a licensed New Hampshire attorney on a specific notice or filing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. How much notice is required for a nonpayment eviction in New Hampshire?
Seven days. Under RSA 540:3, II, 30 days' notice is sufficient in all residential cases, except that 7 days is sufficient where the ground is one of those in RSA 540:2, II(a), (b), (d) or (h). Nonpayment is (a).

Q2. Is the Demand for Rent the same as the eviction notice?
No. They are separate documents. The demand establishes the RSA 540:2, II(a) ground and may be served any time after rent is due, before or simultaneously with the eviction notice.

Q3. Can a New Hampshire landlord demand future rent in the demand?
No. Under RSA 540:8 the lessor may not demand a greater sum than the whole rent in arrears at the time the demand is made. RSA 540:4 separately governs when the demand may be served.

Q4. When does a New Hampshire tenant's right to cure expire?
Under RSA 540:9, I(a), the tenant may pay at any time prior to the hearing on the merits. It does not expire when the seven-day notice expires.

Q5. What does the tenant have to pay to cure?
All rent due and owing through the time of payment, plus other lawful charges contained in the lease, plus $15 liquidated damages, plus any filing fee and service charges the landlord incurred in connection with the possessory action.

Q6. Can the tenant pay by personal check?
Not under RSA 540:9, I(a), which requires cash, certified check, prepaid money order, electronic transfer, or other guaranteed or immediately drawable funds, including forms specified in RSA 540:9-a, I.

Q7. Does the landlord have to do anything when the tenant cures?
Yes. Under RSA 540:9, I(b) the landlord must submit a receipt of the payment to the court before the hearing date and state in writing that a copy went to the tenant. If the landlord does not, the hearing proceeds but the case is still dismissed if the tenant proves payment.

Q8. How many times can a New Hampshire tenant use the right to cure?
Under RSA 540:9, II, a tenant may not defeat a nonpayment eviction by use of the section more than three times within a 12-month period.

Q9. Is that three times per calendar year?
No. The current text uses a rolling 12-month period. Older guidance referring to a calendar year reflects a previous version.

Q10. Where are New Hampshire evictions filed?
By Landlord and Tenant Writ in the Circuit Court District Division for the jurisdiction where the property is located, under RSA 540:13. The writ is purchased from the court and the fee paid before service.

Q11. Can unpaid bed bug remediation costs support a nonpayment eviction?
Yes. Under RSA 540:13-e, III, where the landlord bills the tenant in writing for reasonable remediation costs the tenant is responsible for, and the tenant neither pays nor enters a repayment agreement within 30 days of completion, that failure is grounds for eviction for nonpayment under RSA 540:2, II(a). Under IV, the landlord must prove both that the tenant was responsible and that a reasonable repayment agreement was offered.

Q12. Can a New Hampshire landlord accept partial rent without losing the eviction?
Yes, with a condition. Under RSA 540:13, VII, while the possessory action is pending the landlord may accept payment of the rental arrearage without creating a new tenancy, provided the landlord informs the tenant in writing of the intention to proceed with the eviction despite the payment.

Q13. Can a tenant defend a nonpayment case on habitability grounds?
Yes. Under RSA 540:13-d a nonpayment possession action cannot be maintained where the premises substantially violate the fitness standards in RSA 48-A or local codes and the violation materially affects habitability, provided the tenant proves by clear and convincing evidence that they gave notice while not in arrears, the landlord failed to correct within 14 days, the tenant did not cause the violation, and repairs were not prevented by weather or refused access.

Q14. What if the tenant paid the landlord's utility bill?
Under RSA 540:2, VI, no tenancy may be terminated for nonpayment where the tenant was forced to take over utility payments the landlord agreed to provide in order to prevent a shutoff, the arrears do not exceed the amount the tenant paid, and the tenant has receipts or other proof.

Q15. Does the RSA 540:2 good cause list apply to every New Hampshire rental?
No. Under RSA 540:1-a and RSA 540:2, I, the owner of nonrestricted property may terminate any tenancy by notice without one of the listed grounds. Nonrestricted property includes single-family houses where the owner owns no more than three, and rental units in owner-occupied buildings of four units or fewer.