there can be no doubt that the United States Court of Appeals also intended to make its holding applicable to said Section 206(b).
2. We think it clear that with respect to the injunction and treble damages prayed for the present suit is one 'brought by the United States for the recovery or enforcement of a penalty' under an Act of Congress and is cognizable under Section 1345 and 1355 of Title 28 U.S.C.A.Section 1345 provides: 'Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.'
Section 1355 provides: 'The district courts shall have original jurisdiction exclusive of the courts of the States, of any action or proceeding for the recovery or enforcement of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, incurred under any Act of Congress.'
3. The defendant argues that the prayer of the complaint relating to restitution to the tenants of the overcharges does not constitute an action for the recovery or enforcement of a penalty and as the amount in controversy does not exceed $ 3,000 the Court is without jurisdiction. Woods v. Kern, D.C., 87 F.Supp. 383, filed July 20, 1949. In the latter case it was stated: 'His primary request is that the sum of the overcharges be paid to the former tenant tenant. An action for such purpose is not one to recover a penalty: Porter v. Montgomery, supra (3 Cir., 163 F.2d 211); and Sec. 1355 of Title 28, U.S.C., would be unavailable to confer jurisdiction on this court.' The argument of the defendant is not well taken for Woods v. Kern, supra, and the present case are distinguishable. It will be seen from an examination of the complaint herein that the primary purposes of the United States in bringing the present action is to enjoin the defendant from committing future rent violations and to assess treble damages upon him for past rent violations. An incidental purpose in bringing the action is to have refunded to the tenants the amount of the rentals in excess of the maximum legal rent. Certainly, this Court has the equitable power to grant the incidental relief prayed for, particularly, in view of the fact it has already been shown that it has jurisdiction in all other respects.
4. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is denied. An order in conformity with the foregoing opinion will be presented.