The Waterbury Democrat., 1942-08-24

SoC;:on 138866 of the Maximum Rent Regulations concerns re- strictions on removal of tenants and provides that a tenant shall not be removed from any housing accommodations by action to evict or to recover the premises by ex- cluSion from possession or other wise, except under certain excep- tions therein provided for. One of the exceptions is contained in Sub Paragraph No. 3 allowing removal if the tenant is commit ting or permitting a nuisance. Plaintiff says that this regulation is invalid. In support of his con- tent!on, he cites the purposes of the Act as contained in Section l (a) therefore and the adminis- trator's powers under Section 2 (d) of the act which section reads as follows:
 Whenever in the judgment of the administrator such action is necessary or proper in order to effectuate the purposes of this act, he may, by regulation or order, regulate or prohibit speculative and manipulative practices dn- cluding practices relating to changes in form or quality) or hoarding, in connection with any commodity, and speculative and manipulative practices or renting CT leasing practices Gncluding practices relating to recovery of the possession) in connection with any defense area housing accom- E1odations, which in his judg- ment are equivalent to or are likely to result in price or rent increases, as the case may be, inconsistent with the purposes of this act.''
 Plaintiff contended in oral ar- gument that the administrator authority under the act is con- fined to regulations controlling prices of rents.
 The Defendant and Leon Hen- derson, Price Administrator, who appeared through his attorneys as Amicus Curiae, claim that the regulation in question is valid and, further, that the defendant can- not question the validity of the order in this court as the Finer gency Price ContrCi Acts sets up a method to test the validity of any regulations passed hereunder by appeal to the Price Adminis- trator and from him to the Finer gency Court of Appeals set up by the Act. They say that the plain tiff must exhaust his remedies under the act before he can raise the question of validity of regu- lations in this court.
 This court is of the opinion that the act gives the Price Adminis- trator ample authority to impose restrictions upon the removal of tenants by a landlord and the authority to prohibit the landlord from existing unless the landlord can establish cause under one of the exceptions as contained in the regulations. It is clear that if landlords were allowed to pro- ceed to remove tenants without any restrictions, such practice might very well result in manipu- lation of rents, possible collision and probable increase of rents. So the Price Administrator says 10 the landlord you may not re- move tenant for the mere reason that you wish to obtain possession of the premises but you may re- move tenant provided he is com- mitting a nuisance or is not pay ing his rent or by reason of the other exceptions as contained in the regulations. Furthermore, att tention of the parties is called to Paragraph (b) of Section 1383.66 which is as follows:
 "No tenant snail be removed or evicted on grounds other than those stated above, unless, on pe- tition of the landlord, the Ad- ministrator certified that the landlord may pursue his remedies in accordance with the require- ments of the local law. The Ad- ministrator shall so certify if the landlord establishes that removals or evictions of the character proposed are not inconsistent with the purposes of the Act or this Regulation and would not be like ly to result in the circumvention or evasion thereof"
 The regulations in this Courts opinion are reasonable and are within the purposes of the Act and within the powers given to the Price Administrator by the Act.
 The Act and valid regulations made hereunder definitely limit the rights of landlords under our statutory law of Summary Pro- cess and control the decision of this case.
 In view of The above. this Court