The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCVICAR
This is an action by the Housing Expediter under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1881 et seq., to restrain the defendants from eviction of their tenant and for proceeding further under a judgment procured by the defendants before an alderman and for other relief. The Court, after final hearing as stipulated by the parties, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
1. The defendants, J. Margaret Hilliday and Rose M. Russell are the owners of a certain three-story brick dwelling of twelve rooms located at 600 Whitney Avenue, Wilkinsburg, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
2. Thomas J. Curran has been the tenant in occupancy of the aforesaid premises since July 1, 1946.
3. Since October 1946, the tenant has been subjected to recurrent demands for possession of the devised premises for various reasons.
4. In September 1947 the defendants instituted an action for possession against the above-named tenant before an alderman in the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, which action was based upon the claim that the owners would occupy the premises as their own dwelling; that a hearing in that matter was held by the alderman on September 16, 1947 and continued until September 26, 1947 at which time judgment was entered in favor of the defendants.
5. Subsequent to the foregoing proceeding, to wit, on or about April 30, 1948, the above-named defendants as owners caused a written notice to vacate to be sent by registered mail to the said Thomas J. Curran, tenant, in which the reason for seeking possession was changed from the desire of the owners to occupy the premises as their dwelling to the claim that the premises were no longer available for rental purposes.
6. Subsequently the aforesaid Thomas J. Curran filed a bill in equity in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania at No. 1747, July Term, 1948, against the above-named defendants seeking to restrain them for proceeding to evict him from the premises. Said action is still pending.
7. The defendants caused a writ of possession to be issued out of the office of the alderman on the judgment against the tenant procured by said defendants.
8. The premises occupied by the tenant were held by the defendants for sale prior to the tenancy of Thomas J. Curran, during the said tenancy, and are so held at the present time.
9. At no time during the tenancy of Thomas J. Curran have the defendants been in a position to remodel the premises nor have they any intention of doing so at the present time.
10. At the present time, the defendants do not plan to occupy or remodel the premises.
12. The defendants do not now seek, nor have they sought heretofore, in good faith to recover possession of the housing accommodation in this case for their immediate and personal ...