Case Name: FORAT v. RAUER
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1951-12-06
Citations: 192 F.2d 861
Docket Number: No. 108, Docket 22175
Parties: FORAT v. RAUER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 192
Pages: 861–862

Head Matter:
FORAT v. RAUER.
No. 108, Docket 22175.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Nov. 15, 1951.
Decided Dec. 6, 1951.
Robert Goldstein, of New York City, for def endant-app ellant.
Douglas V. Lewis, of New York City (Donovan, Leisure, Newton, Lumbard & Irvine, of New York City, on the brief), fot plaintiff-appellee.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
1. Defendant's contention that the payment of a bonus to the assignor of a lease does not constitute an overcharge of rent in excess of the maximum permissible rent under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 904(a), 925(e), unless the relation of landlord and tenant exists, is without substance. Rent includes "consideration received for the transfer of a lease." Rent Regulation for Housing in New York City Defense-Rental Area § 13(10), 8 Fed.Reg. 13914. The recovery provisions of the Act are not conditioned upon a finding of the relation of landlord and tenant. Fleming v. Chapman, 2 Cir., 161 F.2d 345. The later legislation itself defines rent to include any "bonus" demanded or received for the transfer of a lease. Housing and Rent Act of 1947, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 1892(e).
2. There was adequate proof of maximum rental based upon defendant's own admission in writing. For the original lease to defendant, which he signed as tenant, contained the- following recital: "The rental hereinabove fixed is the present maximum rent permitted under Rent Regulations for Housing in New York City Defense-Rental Area."
3. The absence of proof as to the agency on behalf of defendant of the broker who effected the assignment is immaterial. That defendant ultimately received the illegal bonus is sufficient. Toobert v. Woods, 9 Cir., 174 F.2d 861, and Ricks v. Corak, D.C.E.D.Pa., 65 F.Supp. 960, cited by defendant are irrelevant; they decide only that an owner is not held for overcharges made by someone for whom he is not responsible, such as a purchaser under a contract of sale or a sublessor.
Affirmed.