In Quevedo v. Braga (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court contributed to the further expansion of the tenant's rights by holding a breach of the implied warranty of habitability would support an independent cause of action against the landlord for damages. The plaintiff in Quevedo had filed a complaint stating two causes of action, the first seeking retroactive rent abatement for the alleged overpayment of rent and the second seeking damages for discomfort and annoyance. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the appellate department of the superior court reversed the order of dismissal as to the cause of action for retroactive rent abatement and affirmed the dismissal of the cause of action seeking damages for discomfort and annoyance. In holding the tenant could not recover for discomfort and annoyance, the Quevedo court noted that the sole theory of liability alleged was the implied warranty of habitability; no cause of action in tort was pleaded. Recognizing the importance of the form of action, the court stated: "Plaintiffs allege in the second cause of action . . . by reason of the breach of implied warranty of habitability, they suffered discomfort and annoyance, to their detriment in the amount of $ 3,000. "In support of this cause of action, appellants cite cases allowing recovery for discomfort and annoyance suffered by occupants of land, regardless of whether they also suffered physical injury. However, those cases involve actions sounding in tort, for trespass or nuisance. No authority has been cited to us, and we know of none, allowing such recovery in an action for breach of an implied warranty in a contract. "While it is true that 'an act that constitutes a breach of contract may also be tortious . . .' , the plaintiffs here did not bring an action sounding in tort, but sued rather for breach of contract." (Id., at p. Supp. 9.)