By definition, if you're a landlord, you're wrong.

It seems as if i am developing a fixation. For the past few columns I have written about my recent experiences in the Housing Court. Well guess what? I am going to amaze you and write about my most recent Housing Court saga.

Once again, as an owner of and manager of real property, I have encountered out-and-out bigotry by our judiciary. But the bigotry I have and probably will continue to experience has nothing to do with my race or ancestry. Nor does it have anything to do with my age, sex or sexual orientation. This prejudice is quite simply because I happen to he a "Landlord." That label automatically centers upon me the worst stereotyping imaginable.

This blatant bias is not limited to only tenants, but is endemic to our court system as well. In some instances, judges and their clerks are so prejudiced that fairness is an abstract concept in their dealings with us. We are assumed to be greedy when we bring a case seeking the rent owed.

"How dare this landlord believe be should he entitled to attorney's fees," most judges seem to be saying. apparently, even when a tenant forces us to go to court to collect the rent, we should bear the cost.

For another strange reason, all property owners are assumed to be billionaires, while tenants, no matter who they happen to be, are treated as if they are destitute. Sometimes I feel as if the judge thinks that he is Robin Hood, protecting the common folk against Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham. I want to scream at the top of my lungs at them to see me, the tenant and our dispute for what it is. I am sick of the courts seeing our little non-payment proceeding as some epic class struggle of the serfs against a landed nobility!

I want the law as written to be upheld. Is that so difficult for judges to understand? Enforce the provisions of the lease as agreed upon when it was entered into by the parties. A tenant should not have cane blanche to ignore contractual obligations and then use the courts as a shield. The courts ignoring a property owner's rights in favor of some perceived need to help the downtrodden tenant is just plain wrong.

Just this week I experienced an outcome in a case that illustrates my point exactly. Let me summarize the facts for you: A tenant - who was renting a large retail space - and I could not agree on a new lease. When the term ended, the tenant requested a one-month extension, to which I said yes. A short time before the extended time lapsed, I walked through the space with the superintendent and noticed the amount of old trade fixtures and garbage being left behind. I told the super to make sure that the tenant understood that he had to clean the premises.

In fact, I even wrote the tenant and told him that in order for him to be in compliance with his lease, he must leave it empty and in broom-clean condition. The tenant called me back and said "no problem." Five days after the end of the extended time, the tenant left the store keys with the building's elevator operator. The next day, upon examining the store and finding it filled with fixtures and trash, I telephoned the tenant in his new location, but he did not return my call.

I received an estimate from two contractors to clean the premises, the cheapest of which was nearly $20,000. At that point the new tenant, who was anxious to get into the space, said he would clean it if I gave him more free rent. Since if I had hired a contractor I still would have been unable to collect the rent from the new tenant, I felt this was the cheapest way to accomplish the task at hand. At the same time, I minimized my damages, which I intended to have the old tenant pay.

After several months of going to court, and of course getting nowhere near a trial, the judge who would have heard the case announced that as far as he was concerned, I should eat the expense and chalk it up as a cost of doing business. He ignored the photographs showing the mess and the lease provisions regarding broom-clean condition.

The judge didn't see himself as an impartial arbiter of the law. He was Don Quixote, protecting the helpless tenant. Facts, contractual obligations, fairness or even the law would not stand in his way. An owner of real property is an enemy of the people, if not officially the state. I don't know if we are trapped in an Orwellian nightmare or a fantasy by Heller - but I can tell you, this isn't justice.

(Thomas F. Campenni is a real estate consultant advising owners, condominiums and coops. He welcomes responses in writing at 21 West 40th Street, NY, NY 10036, or by calling 212-921-8043).