City Council’s housing committee, for the second time in less than a month, advanced a slate of tenant protections, irritating small landlords who say the new regulations could put them out of business.

Ahead of an anticipated final vote March 19, lawmakers agreed to refer the legislation back to the committee. The decision was made to settle a legal complaint brought by a pair of landlords alleging that Council violated the state’s open meetings law and the city’s governing document by granting preliminary approval to the bills before taking public comment during a March 4 hearing.

The two bills, grouped together under Councilmember Nicolas O’Rourke’s “Safe Healthy Homes Act,” would expand Philadelphia’s good cause eviction law to include longer leases and establish a proactive rental inspection program.

Landlords would be required to notify tenants that they are not obliged to pay rent if a property is deemed imminently dangerous or if maintenance issues are not repaired in a timely manner. The legislation also safeguards a renter’s right to organize with their neighbors or through an advocacy group, among a host of other provisions.

While the bills passed out of committee in a unanimous voice tally Monday, at least one member, Curtis Jones Jr., indicated he would like to see “reasonable amendments” before a final vote by the full Council.

“For the record, we passed this out of committee because we believe in the character of our member,” he said, referring to O’Rourke.

Earlier in the hearing, Jones asked whether a series of amendments offered by Mo Rushdy, of the Building Industry Association, would alter the intent of the proposed laws. He spoke of his desire to protect “mom-and-pop” landlords.

“If not, what we’ll have is big companies that don’t give a damn about Philadelphia come in, invest and do harmful things to the tenants,” Jones added.

Following the meeting, O’Rourke told reporters that he remains open to continued conversation around the legislation that could lead to changes in the language of the bills.

“There’s been a lot of framing this as an attack or an onslaught on landlords,” he said. “That’s maybe a secondary consequence, that there is an actual regulation that’s provided as it relates to landlord accountability. But the first push, the first thrust here is tenant protections.”

Much of Monday’s hearing, which lasted more than two hours and 30 minutes, consisted of testimony, impassioned at times, from landlords and tenants.

Renters recounted dealing with rodents, mold, gas leaks and other problems that were reported to the property’s owner and went unaddressed for far too long. Seneca Grant, a tenant, told lawmakers he has been without heat for three years.

“If you have a problem with anything that we’re proposing, then you are in the wrong business,” he said. “We’re asking for basic protections, things that should already be on the books.”

Landlords lined up to argue that the legislation would place too much of a burden on smaller property owners and would lead to buildings being bought up by larger conglomerates. The measures, they added, are too one-sided in favor of the tenant.

“There is not one person in this room – I mean, no one – that doesn’t want safe homes for Philadelphians,” said Seth Floyd, a landlord and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “We’re here to keep the balance of the ecosystem.”

Monday’s hearing was actually the third related to the Safe Healthy Homes Act. The two bills were held in committee following a lengthy meeting in June, when a third piece of legislation won approval. That measure created a relocation fund for renters who need to move as a result of a city inspection.

The final two bills could come up for a final vote as early as April 16; any amendments would push that date back by at least a week.