The opinion of the court was delivered by: GOURLEY
The United States brings this action against Helen G. Nelson and J. Henry Nelson because of rent overcharges in violation of Section 206(a) of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1891 et seq. The authority of the United States to bring such an action is found in Sections 205 and 206(b) of the Act as amended.
This matter was heard ex parte by reason of defendants' failure to make an appearance.
The Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
1. At all times herein mentioned the defendants Helen G. Nelson and J. Henry Nelson were the landlords of housing accommodations within the Pittsburgh Defense Rental Area designated as 313 East Falls Street, New Castle, Pennsylvania.
2. There was in effect at all times pertinent hereto and there is still in effect the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, and the Controlled Housing Rent Regulation issued pursuant thereto which said Act and Regulation established maximum legal rents for housing accommodations within the Pittsburgh Defense Rental Area.
3. During the period between September 1, 1947 and December 31, 1948 the maximum legal rent for the housing accommodation referred to in Finding No. 1, under the aforesaid Act and Regulation, was $ 27.50 per month.
4. During the period September 1, 1947 to September 30, 1947 the defendants received from Merle E. Wadding the sum of $ 40 for an in connection with the use and occupancy of the accommodation hereinbefore referred to and during the period between October 1, 1947 and December 31, 1948 the defendants received from the said Merele E. Wadding the sum of $ 45 per month for and in connection with the use and occupancy of the aforesaid accommodation.
6. The total overcharges received by the defendants from the aforesaid Merle E. Wadding amounted to $ 275 of which total sum the portion of the overcharges received within one year prior to the institution of this suit amount to $ 140.
7. The defendants have failed to establish that the violations were neither willful nor the result of failure to take practicable precautions against their occurrence.
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit and over the parties hereto.
2. The defendants have violated the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, by demanding and receiving rents in excess of the maximum rent permitted by the said Act and the Controlled Housing ...