Docket No. H-83359, Mr. Feldman, 2024 North Twelfth Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Landlord spent $1,101.66 on improvements and repairs. Filed petition for adjustment of rent on October 18, 1951. He was given but a slight increase by ORS and the landlord is now appealing from the ŎRS rent order. At the raise given it would take 8 years to pay off the amount without interest or cost of repairs during the 8-year period.

Docket No. H-83360—Mr. Feldman, 1939 North Twelfth Street, Philadelphia, Pa. The landlord spent $2,361.52 in alterations and repairs. He filed a petition for adjustment of rent on October 18, 1951. On November 6, 1951, the ORS approved but slight increases in rent and the landlord appealed as the raises when applied to the alteration and repair bill would take 18 years to pay off without interest and the repairs in the 18 years.

Docket Nos. H-62552 and H-62553-Sarah Thompson, 2016-18 Wallace Street, Philadelphia, Pa.

Landlord spent $11,000 in making major improvements and repairs in these two houses. All 10 apartments were vacant. Landlord filed for increase in rents. The ORS denied the petition and reaffirmed the old rentals that existed before the houses were so completely renovated and improved. The landlord has appealed

the case.

Docket Nos. H-00948, H-00949, and H-00950.-I. Rugowitz, owner, 907 Rodman Street, Philadelphia, Pa., Room No. 4; third floor rear, first floor rear

The landlord had been renting these rooms without linen service and his rent ceiling was based on same. He then changed and began giving linen service and filed for an increase of 50 cents a week in rent for the new additional service furnished. The ORS office denied the requested rent increase.

Docket No. K-16982-Elmer Bushoff, owner, 4745 Griscom Street, second floor, Philadelphia, Pa.

This landlord had a tenant (commercial) Lucadian Cartographers, photogrammetric and cartographic engineers, who were occupying space on the second floor adjacent to the apartment of one David Baxter. This concern is engaged in defense work and has a DO-C-9 allotment classification. They needed more space to handle additional Government work on which they were bidding. The tenant, Baxter, was approached and offered the choice of two apartments on the first floor in similar-type buildings in the same block owned by the same landlord and these were better than the one he occupied. One was at the same rental

and one was $1 a week more. The landlord would pay for all moving expense. The tenant verbally agreed and the concern took the bid on additional Government work having the assurance of more space adjacent to their premises. Then the tenant declined to move and the landlord sought to evict him. The ORS denied the landlord the right of eviction and he appealed and a future hearing was scheduled.

Docket No. H-01355-A. White, owner, U. S. Armstrong, agent, 708 South Thirteenth Street, Philadelphia, Pa.

Landlord rented premises to tenant on lease which specifies that the tenant has the responsibility for the upkeep of the dwelling. Tenant does no upkeep but lets the dwelling run down. Therefor the landlord to protect his investment in the building and to comply with the building inspector's orders for repairs had to repaid and do maintenance work. The tenant was originally given a low rental in consideration of any repairs having to be done by the tenant. When the landlord had to take over doing the repairs he petitioned for an adjustment of rental from $16 a month to $26 a month. The ORS approved a raise of $3.20 bringing the rent up to $19.20 a month. This despite the fact that the landlord had just spent $92.40 for repairs.

Docket No. H-02332—John J. Norkey, owner, 33 Sellers Avenue, Milbourne, Pa., second floor

The landlord spent $645 in major improvements including new oil-burner unit complete; new toilet, and other plumbing. He then petitioned for an adjustment of rent from $57.50 a month to $80 a month. The ORS approved a maximum rent of but $60 a month; a raise of only $2.50 a month. It would take over 21 years to pay off the principal amount spent not to mention interest and repairs on equipment in that 21-year period. The tenant in the case submitted a letter stating that the tenant would be satisfied to pay $75 a month rental.

Docket No. H-01982-83-84-85–86–87, Frank Franco, owner, 2125 Spring Garden St., Philadelphia 30, Pa.

Landlord put in major improvements and repairs to the house in general totaling $2,211.98 plus the following additional:

Thus the landlord was given 50 cents a week raise on two apartments and none on the other four. This amounted to $52 a year and it would take over 100 years to pay off the amount of money spent on improvements without interest or interim repairs and replacements in the 100-year period.

Docket No. I-1-39433: AT—Nellie S. Gates, owner, 2231 North Twenty-second Street, third floor, rear, Philadelphia, Pa.

The maximum rent for this apartment had been set by the ORS at $12.50 per week and landlord had been collecting such rental for a period of months.

Then

the landlord received a notice of proceedings by rent director dated February 15; 1952, stating that it was proposed to reduce the rent from $12.50 to $8.50 a week. The landlord replied by letter dated February 16, 1952, requesting a hearing on the matter so that he could voice his objections to it as it would be impossible to carry on at the reduced rent. There was nothing further heard from the ORS until an order adjusting maximum rent was received by the landlord that was dated March 17, 1952, stating that the rent director on grounds stated in section 157 (a) of the rent regulations had reduced the rent to $8.50 a week effective the next rent payment period.

There was no consideration given to the landlord's request asking for a hearing on the matter and it indicated an utter disregard for any rights of the landlord. The landlord then requested that the matter be placed before the local rent advisory board and that is the status of the case at this writing.

OFFICE OF RENT STABILIZATION,

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY RENT ADVISORY BOARD,

Philadelphia, Pa., March 28, 1952.

The Philadelphia County Rent Advisory Board, which is a group of Philadelphia citizens representing landlord, tenant, and public interest groups who serve without compensation in an advisory capacity to the Philadelphia Office of the Office of Rent Stabilization in accordance with the congressional mandate for the creation of such boards, respectfully submit the following:

1. That, on numerous occasions John Warren, president of the Property Owners Association of Philadelphia, has filed appeals in behalf of members of that Association, from orders issued by the Philadelphia Office of the Office of Rent Stabilization;

2. That, the bases of such appeals, generally, have been that the landlords involved have either not obtained sufficiently high adjustments of rent from the Philadelphia rent office or that the Philadelphia rent office has decreased certain rents without cause;

3. That, each of these appeals has been carefully heard by the members of the Philadelphia Rent Advisory Board, at open hearings, at which the landlords involved, John Warren as president of the Property Owners Association of Philadelphia, their attorneys, their witnesses, as well as the tenants involved were present;

4. That, in almost every instance the Board, after a full hearing of the merits of the case, decided that the order of the Philadelphia rent director was proper and recommendations were made to sustain such orders;

5. That, the Philadelphia Rent Advisory Board has concluded, as a result of long experience with the officers of the Property Owners Association of Philadelphia, and the landlords who are represented by this association before this Board, that such landlords frequently decreased essential services which they were obligated to supply with the apartments or houses involved; that on some occasions such landlords have increased rents by reason of alleged changes of the housing accommodations from unfurnished to furnished, whereas no furniture was ever in fact provided; that on occasions leases and other documents were submitted in evidence allegedly signed by the tenant, whereas in fact there was serious doubt that such leases were every signed or if they were that the tenant understood the contents of such leases; and that in many cases the landlords involved resorted to various types of subterfuge in achieving their purposes;

6. That, in a great number of cases the landlords involved in the appeal proceedings set forth above had been charging rents in excess of the maximum legal rent before a proper petition for adjustment of rent had been filed with the Philadelphia rent office and that in most cases such landlords were dissatisfied with the orders of the rent office primarily because the increases in rent granted were not as great as the amount of rent these landlords had been illegally charging their tenants;

7. That, Mr. Warren in his appearances before the Board has, on various occasions, acted without proper decorum; has used abusive language toward his tenants, which in some cases came very close to being slanderous, and has constantly introduced issues which were irrelevant to the point under consideration; 8. That, this Board is of the opinion that the Property Owners Association of Pailadelphia and its membership has received fair and impartial treatment by the Philadelphia rent office and that office has granted to these landlords every

relief to which they were entitled under the Housing and Rent Act and the rent regulation issued pursuant thereto;

9. That, the members of this Board stand ready to appear before any congressional committee to testify on any matters that the local rent advisory board has considered involving rent cases of Property Owners Association of Philadelphia and its members.

GEORGE W. WILKINS, Chairman.
JACOB HULITT.

LEON J. OBERMAYER.

JAMES A. SCANLON.

DAVID E. TRIESTER.

CASES FROM THE MARYLAND AREA

Docket No. J-2-508-Delmar A. Lough, owner, 4705 Hudson Avenue SE, Washington 20, D. C.

The landlord had just acquired the four-family flat. The previous owner had obtained and had been receiving for a considerable period of time, a 15-percent increase in rental, with the approval of the ORS, which had set the ceiling rent, including the 15-percent increase, at $82.40 a month, as of July 18, 1949, on an order dated August 1, 1949. The new landlord applied for the additional 5-percent increase that he was entitled to under the 20-percent increase authorized by the act of Congress. On filing for same, the ORS notified him on January 14, 1952, that they were revoking the order of August 1, 1949, and instead of giving him the 5 percent to which he was entitled, they were lowering the old maximum rent from $82.40 a month to $79.80 a month. Thus he did not get the 5-percent increase, but had the rent cut $2.60 a month.

(NOTE. On the other three apartments comprising this building, on which he also sought the additional 5-percent raise to bring it up to the full 20 percent authorized by Congress, the landlord got the following action from the ORS office. Two apartments were left at the old rental, or the 15-percent increase, and on the third he received an additional 5 percent for the full 20-percent increase. There is no apparent logic to the action taken on these four-apartment units that comprised one house.)

D-11 (Rev. 7-49). Form approved, Budget Bureau No. 63-R694

OFFICE OF RENT STABILIZATION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS TO CHANGE ORDER

Stamp of issuing office: Office of Rent Stabilization, Area Rent Office, 934 Ellsworth Drive, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Concerning (address of accommodations): 4705 Hudson Ave. SE., Washington 20, D. C.

Apartment No.: "D."

Docket No.: J-2-508.

To (name and address of landlord): Mr. Delmar A. Lough, 913 Eye St. NW., Washington, D. C.

To (name and address of tenant): Mr. and Mrs. Simmons, 4705 Hudson Ave. SE., "D," Washington 20, D. C.

Upon reinvestigation of the above matter in which an order was entered on August 1, 1949, the Area Rent Director proposes: To revoke such Order because investigation discloses it to be erroneous. Based upon the rent generally prevailing on the maximum rent date (1-1-41) for comparable housing accommodations, with due regard to the services and equipment provided and any points of difference, plus an adequate allowance for increase in operating costs since that date, the Rent Director proposes to reduce the maximum rent under Section 157 of the Rent Regulations from $82.40 per month furnished to $79.80 per month furnished, effective date issued.

You may within 7 days from the date this notice is issued file any written statement or other evidence which you wish the Area Rent Director to consider concerning his proposed action. Any written statement or other evidence must be prepared in duplicate, and the docket number appearing on this notice should be

placed on each document filed. If no statement or evidence is filed within the above period, the Area Rent Director may take the action proposed without further notice. W. THOMPSON,

Area Rent Director, Montgomery-Prince Georges Defense Rental Area. Date issued: January 14, 1952.

Form D-35 (Rev. 5-48)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OFFICE OF THE HOUSING EXPEDITER

ORDER ADJUSTING MAXIMUM RENT

Stamp of issuing office: Rent Division, 8055 13th Street, Silver Spring, Maryland. Concerning (address of accommodations): 4705 Hudson Ave. SE., Washington, D. C. Apartment No. D. Docket No. H-2522.

To (name and address of landlord): Mr. Charles T. Paston, 4705 Hudson Avenue, Apt. A, Washington 20, D. C.

The Rent Director, after consideration of all the evidence in this matter, has determined that the maximum rent for the above-described accommodations should be adjusted on the grounds stated in Section (s) 5 (a) (3) of the Rent Regulations.

Therefore, it is ordered that the maximum rent for the above-described housing accommodations be, and it hereby is, changed from $56.90 per month to $82.40 per month.

Unfurnished to furnished.

This order issued August 1, 1949, and is effective July 18, 1949.

This order will remain in effect until changed by the Office of the Housing Expediter.

WALTER M. HURTH,

Rent Director, Montgomery-Prince Georges Defense-Rental Area. Notice to landlord and tenant: The effect of this order is merely to increase the rental ceiling as of its effective date. The right to collect the higher rental depends upon your rental agreement under local law.

To (name and address of tenant): A. Coulter, Jr., Apt. D., 4705 Hudson Ave. SE., Washington 20, D. C.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Mr. Chairman, is the Senator from Indiana through?

Senator CAPEHART. Yes, I am through.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I would like to ask you two or three questions with reference to the part of the communication that the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Capehart, read from with reference to the public-housing units, or Federal-assisted units on financing, whatever term was used. Were all of these public-housing units required to file registration

statements?

Mr. Woods. Yes, sir.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. In the case of any of these that had filed registration statements, public-housing units wholly or partially financed, or guaranteed, on the part of the Government, or where any public funds were used in them, when you found those listing no decorations and all that, did you go back then, as you have on a lot of individual registrants, and clip them where they did not redecorate? Mr. WOODS. Yes, sir. That is going on right now. I know from memory of at least nine projects-these are not units but big projectswhere a decrease in service has been proven and we have cut the rents. Senator SCHOEPPEL. Did you do that just as discreetly and as expeditiously in those cases as you did in the individual landlord cases? Mr. Woods. I think in many of them it was quicker.