The opinion of the court was delivered by: BARD
This is an action by the Housing Expediter against a landlord for rent overcharges. The tenants involved have been added as parties plaintiff so that the defendant could have the opportunity to prove any counterclaims relating to this cause of action in an amount not to exceed the Housing Expediter's claim for restitution. On the basis of the pleadings and the testimony, I make the following special
1. The plaintiffs are Tighe E. Woods, Housing Expediter, James F. Welch, Nan McCloskey and Elizabeth Hansen.
2. The defendant is Edward D. Whelan, a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
3. This suit is brought under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended,
the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended,
and regulations issued thereunder.
4. In another opinion, D.C., 93 F.Supp. 401, in this case which is also filed this date, I granted the Housing Expediter's motion for summary judgment on the claims for restitution to James F. Welch in the amount of $ 112, and for restitution to Elizabeth Hansen in the amount of $ 154. All facts reported in that opinion are hereby incorporated into this opinion.
5. At all times mentioned herein, the defendant was the landlord of the housing accommodations within the Philadelphia Defense Rental Area designated as second floor apartment, 3236 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
7. Knowing that the maximum legal rent was $ 36 per month, the defendant demanded and received rent for the use and occupancy of the aforesaid housing accommodation from the tenant Nan McCloskey in the amount of $ 50 per month for the period July 22, 1947 to October 21, 1947 inclusive, and in the amount of $ 40 per month for the period October 22, 1947 to November 21, 1947, inclusive.
8. The rents received by the defendant as set forth above were in excess of the maximum legal rents for the aforesaid housing accommodation. The total overcharges so received during that period were $ 46.
9. The tenant Nan McCloskey committed waste during her occupancy of the aforesaid housing accommodation to the extent that the defendant had to replace four lighting fixtures at a cost of $ 16 for the fixtures and $ 23 for labor.
10. The defendant is suffering from a physical infirmity which renders him unable to work.
1. This Court has jurisdiction of ...