Court Opinion

ID: 9749312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:33:00.289228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:46.328808
License: Public Domain

Heher, J.
(dissenting in part). The regulation of the rent ceiling for accommodations afforded by housing projects financed by Government-insured mortgages under the National Housing Act, 12 U. S. C. A., section 1743, is committed to the Federal Housing Commissioner for a reasonable containment of the rental charges and the amortization of the Government’s mortgage security; and there can be no state interference with the fulfillment of what has been made exclusive federal policy.
*488The federal act, section 1743, also 1713(6), empowers the Commissioner to regulate and restrict rents, rate of return and methods of operation; and the corporate structure itself is so molded and conditioned. The Government’s reserved rent control has the three-fold object of providing reasonably priced tenancies yielding also a fair return to the operator of the housing facility, and the Government’s exonerative protection under its insurance undertaking, all to serve an urgent essential public need.
Thus, by preemption, rent control itself becomes to this extent the Government’s exclusive province. But such is not the sum of state control under the state act. The state law covers a broader area; and in so far as it does not conflict with the reserved federal control it is effective. Eor example, the state act confers jurisdiction not only to fix maximum rents, but also of evictions and “manipulative,” “speculative,” and irregular practices deemed offensive to state control policy without invading the reserved federal domain, limited as it is to the execution of the policy and design of the federal act.
And this is the plain import, I would suggest, of section 30 of the state act, N. J. S. 2A :42-43, providing that “In the event * * * Federal rent control is in operation in any area of this State and this act is in operation also in such area, the provisions of such Federal rent control shall prevail.” And “Federal rent control” is defined, N. J. S. 2A :42-14, as “the operation of any Act of Congress and of any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to the authority of any Act of Congress and the administration of any such act or rule or regulation by any department, authority, agent, officer, or other administrative agency, authority or board of the Government of the United States, in respect to housing space and the rental thereof in effect and operation in the State of New Jersey or in any part or parts thereof.” The preamble declares that the “enactment of an adequate State rent control law, to become operative upon the termination of federal rent control, is imperative.”
*489These are not terms of art, but definitive words of ordinary usage that are to be given their common understanding if the legislative purpose is to be effectuated.
It is of interpretive significance that the regulations adopted by the Federal Commissioner provide, and the provision is incorporated in the charter, that such rent control would yield to the regulation of maximum rents by “another agency of the United States Government,” whose established maximum rental “will be accepted by the Commissioner as an approved rent schedule,” and be resumed upon the expiration of the authority of such agency to fix maximum rentals, when the maximum rental then in force in relation to the project shall continue and “shall not thereafter be changed except upon approval of the Commissioner.”
There is no such submission to the regulation of maximum rents by a state authority, for obvious reasons related to overriding federal control requisite to the service of federal policy. The State agency is not empowered to enforce the federal rule of rent control according to federal standards and interests, within the federal rent maximum; and it cannot thus defeat federal control to subserve legitimate national aims in the field.
The nature of the power is revealed by the provision for a continuance of Federal rent control until the termination of “all obligations” of the Commissioner under the granted insurance. The legislative standard, 12 U. S. C. Asection 1713, is “reasonable rentals to tenants and a reasonable return on the investment,” thereby permitting of the amortization protective of the Government’s interest.
The State Director would by Change No. 5 “roll back” the established rental maximum to a time when the maximum was substantially lower than it now is under the order of the Federal Commissioner; and this is beyond his province. Thereby, federal control would be subverted.
I concur in the holding that the exclusion of buildings having less than 50 units from the operation of the order, unrelated as it is to the service of any discernible reason of *490legislative policy, renders the classification illusory and discriminatory and devoid of vital force.
I would modify accordingly the judgment declarative of the matters in controversy.
Mr. Justice Wacheneeld joins in this dissent.
For entry of judgment in accordance' with majority opinion — Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Oliphant, Burling, Jacobs and Brennan — 5.
For entry of judgment in accordance with minority opinion — Justices Heher and Wacheneeld — 2.