SPEARS, District Judge:
The government, in asking injunctive relief, claims that defendant violated Executive Order No. 11615,
and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, which imposed a ninety day stabiliza
tion period on prices, rents, wages, and salaries, effective August 15, 1971. The Court agrees with the government’s position and has granted the injunction sought. This memorandum shall constitute the findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Rule 52(a) F.R.Civ.P.
Defendant, the owner of the Antonian Apartments, a 104 unit complex in San Antonio, Texas, on April 1, 1971 raised the monthly rental on all newly rented apartments by $10.00; however, apartments which had been rented prior thereto continued to be rented at the rate charged before that date.
On July 28, 1971, and again on August 26, 1971, a number of occupants of the Antonian Apartments, who had rented their apartments prior to April 1, 1971, were notified by letter that their rental rates would be raised $10.00 per month on September 1, 1971, in accordance with the rental schedule that had previously been imposed on new occupants. The raise became effective on the date indicated, which was fifteen days after the stabilization period began, and the increased rent was still being charged on the date of the hearing herein. No exemption, exception, or adjustment, within the purview of existing regulations, was sought by the defendant.
The defendant’s complex is comprised of four classes of apartments: Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D. Each apartment within one of the classes is substantially the same as all others within the class. The rental schedules imposed upon newly rented apartments before and after April 1, 1971, were as follows:
Before April 1 After April 1
Class A $155 $165
Class B $165 $175
Class C $195 $205
Class D $220 $230
On August 14, 1971, the day before the “Price-Wage Freeze”, defendant had rented the following percentages of his apartments at the April, 1971 rental rate:
Class A 12.5%
Class B 29.1%
Class C 25.0%
Class D 25.0%
This Court has jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 205 of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970,
as well as under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
The defendant does not contest the validity of the Executive Order itself, nor does he question the authority of Con-' gress to delegate powers to the President under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, as amended. His contention is that since more than 10% of his actual transactions involving the higher rentals in each class of apartments occurred during the nearest preceding 30-day period,
the Order does not preclude him from bringing all rentals into conformity with rents on the apartments which were rented after April 1, 1971. On the other hand, the government says that defendant was prohibited from charging any more than he had charged for the same units during the base period. At issue, therefore, is the interpretation of the Act, the Executive Order, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.
Section 1(a) of the Executive Order reads as follows:
“Prices, rents, wages, and salaries shall be stabilized for a period of 90 days from the date hereof at levels not greater than the highest of those pertaining to a substantial volume of actual transactions by each individual, business, firm or other entity of any kind during the 30-day period ending August 14, 1971, for like or similar commodities or services. If no transactions occurred in that period, the ceiling will be the highest price, rent, salary or wage in the nearest preceding 30-day period in which transactions did occur. No person shall charge, assess, or receive, directly or indirectly in any transaction prices or rents in any form higher than those permitted hereunder, and no person shall, directly or indirectly, pay or agree to pay in any transaction wages or salaries in any form, or to use any means to obtain payment of wages and salaries in any form, higher than those permitted hereunder, whether by retroactive increase or otherwise.”
Defendant insists that he was merely bringing all rental charges after September 1 up to a level no greater “than the highest of those pertaining to a substantial volume of actual transactions * * * during the 30-day period ending August 14, 1971,” and that he is being denied the benefit of the “substantial volume of actual transactions” treatment referred to in the President’s Order. In this connection, he argues that the Cost of Living Council was without authority to initiate the regulation
which states:
Rents. The ceiling rent for commercial property, housing accommodations, hotels, motels, rooming houses, farms, and other establishments, together with all privileges, services, furnishings, furniture, equipment, facilities, improvements, and any other privileges connected with the use thereof shall be no greater than the highest rent charged for the
same
property during the base period. If the property was not rented during the base period, the ceiling price shall be no higher than the highest rent charged during the nearest preceding 30-day period prior to the base period. If the property was never previously rented, the ceiling rent shall be no higher than the ceiling rent charged for similar or comparable property in the locality or area. (Emphasis supplied.)
The defendant’s position seems to be that Section 1(a) of the Executive Order restricts the Cost of Living Council to the precise language contained therein, and that the Council therefore, had no authority to dilute the “substantial volume of actual transactions” phrase used by the President. However, defendant overlooks the fact that in the same Order, which was entered as an emergency measure, the President has not only delegated to the Council all of the powers
(except as hereinafter stated) conferred on him by the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, but he has empowered the Council to prescribe definitions for any terms used, to make exceptions, to grant exemptions, to issue regulations and orders, and to take such other actions as it may determine necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Order,
which was “to stabilize the economy, reduce inflation, and minimize unemployment.”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SPEARS, District Judge:
The government, in asking injunctive relief, claims that defendant violated Executive Order No. 11615,
and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, which imposed a ninety day stabiliza
tion period on prices, rents, wages, and salaries, effective August 15, 1971. The Court agrees with the government’s position and has granted the injunction sought. This memorandum shall constitute the findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Rule 52(a) F.R.Civ.P.
Defendant, the owner of the Antonian Apartments, a 104 unit complex in San Antonio, Texas, on April 1, 1971 raised the monthly rental on all newly rented apartments by $10.00; however, apartments which had been rented prior thereto continued to be rented at the rate charged before that date.
On July 28, 1971, and again on August 26, 1971, a number of occupants of the Antonian Apartments, who had rented their apartments prior to April 1, 1971, were notified by letter that their rental rates would be raised $10.00 per month on September 1, 1971, in accordance with the rental schedule that had previously been imposed on new occupants. The raise became effective on the date indicated, which was fifteen days after the stabilization period began, and the increased rent was still being charged on the date of the hearing herein. No exemption, exception, or adjustment, within the purview of existing regulations, was sought by the defendant.
The defendant’s complex is comprised of four classes of apartments: Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D. Each apartment within one of the classes is substantially the same as all others within the class. The rental schedules imposed upon newly rented apartments before and after April 1, 1971, were as follows:
Before April 1 After April 1
Class A $155 $165
Class B $165 $175
Class C $195 $205
Class D $220 $230
On August 14, 1971, the day before the “Price-Wage Freeze”, defendant had rented the following percentages of his apartments at the April, 1971 rental rate:
Class A 12.5%
Class B 29.1%
Class C 25.0%
Class D 25.0%
This Court has jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 205 of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970,
as well as under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
The defendant does not contest the validity of the Executive Order itself, nor does he question the authority of Con-' gress to delegate powers to the President under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, as amended. His contention is that since more than 10% of his actual transactions involving the higher rentals in each class of apartments occurred during the nearest preceding 30-day period,
the Order does not preclude him from bringing all rentals into conformity with rents on the apartments which were rented after April 1, 1971. On the other hand, the government says that defendant was prohibited from charging any more than he had charged for the same units during the base period. At issue, therefore, is the interpretation of the Act, the Executive Order, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.
Section 1(a) of the Executive Order reads as follows:
“Prices, rents, wages, and salaries shall be stabilized for a period of 90 days from the date hereof at levels not greater than the highest of those pertaining to a substantial volume of actual transactions by each individual, business, firm or other entity of any kind during the 30-day period ending August 14, 1971, for like or similar commodities or services. If no transactions occurred in that period, the ceiling will be the highest price, rent, salary or wage in the nearest preceding 30-day period in which transactions did occur. No person shall charge, assess, or receive, directly or indirectly in any transaction prices or rents in any form higher than those permitted hereunder, and no person shall, directly or indirectly, pay or agree to pay in any transaction wages or salaries in any form, or to use any means to obtain payment of wages and salaries in any form, higher than those permitted hereunder, whether by retroactive increase or otherwise.”
Defendant insists that he was merely bringing all rental charges after September 1 up to a level no greater “than the highest of those pertaining to a substantial volume of actual transactions * * * during the 30-day period ending August 14, 1971,” and that he is being denied the benefit of the “substantial volume of actual transactions” treatment referred to in the President’s Order. In this connection, he argues that the Cost of Living Council was without authority to initiate the regulation
which states:
Rents. The ceiling rent for commercial property, housing accommodations, hotels, motels, rooming houses, farms, and other establishments, together with all privileges, services, furnishings, furniture, equipment, facilities, improvements, and any other privileges connected with the use thereof shall be no greater than the highest rent charged for the
same
property during the base period. If the property was not rented during the base period, the ceiling price shall be no higher than the highest rent charged during the nearest preceding 30-day period prior to the base period. If the property was never previously rented, the ceiling rent shall be no higher than the ceiling rent charged for similar or comparable property in the locality or area. (Emphasis supplied.)
The defendant’s position seems to be that Section 1(a) of the Executive Order restricts the Cost of Living Council to the precise language contained therein, and that the Council therefore, had no authority to dilute the “substantial volume of actual transactions” phrase used by the President. However, defendant overlooks the fact that in the same Order, which was entered as an emergency measure, the President has not only delegated to the Council all of the powers
(except as hereinafter stated) conferred on him by the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, but he has empowered the Council to prescribe definitions for any terms used, to make exceptions, to grant exemptions, to issue regulations and orders, and to take such other actions as it may determine necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Order,
which was “to stabilize the economy, reduce inflation, and minimize unemployment.”
In addition, the Council was given the power to redelegate its authority to any agency, instrumentality, or officials of the United States, and to utilize the services of any other agencies, Federal or State, as may be available and appropriate.
It is abundantly clear from a reading of the entire Executive Order that the President intended to and did delegate all of his powers to the Cost of Living Council,
except insofar as prices charged ,for raw agricultural products were concerned.
In short the President turned the pressing economic problems of the nation over to the Cost of Living Council lock, stock and barrel, with few strings attached, as he had a right to do.
When he imposed this important responsibility upon the Council he wisely gave it autonomous power to discharge its heavy burden, even to placing its own definitions upon any terms used by him. This the Council has done, and although some of its regulations to that effect may, in some instances, actually conflict with general language used by the President, it cannot be said that it was not acting within the scope of the specific authority granted to it by him.
Under the circumstances, the regulations
promulgated by the Council are valid and the defendant during the 90-day “freeze” is limited to charging the same rentals he had charged for the same units during the base period.
As to the defendant’s claim that he was denied due process of law, because there is no provision in the Act, the Executive Order, or the regulations, affording him an administrative hearing, it is noted that Section 205
of the Act requires that an application for injunction on the part of any agency of the government must be brought in the proper United States District Court, thus assuring any alleged violator a hearing before his acts or practices may be enjoined.
In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that the Cost of Living Council had the complete authority to promulgate the regulations referred to; that the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, as amended, together with Executive Order 11615, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, are not unconstitutional; that they do not deprive the defendant of due process; that they have not been arbitrarily enforced as to the defendant; and that the action of the defendant in increasing rents at the time he did so constituted a violation of said Act, the Executive Order, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. As a consequence, this Court has caused the following order to be entered:
“It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that the defendant be, and he is hereby, permanently enjoined, during the duration of Executive Order 11615, from charging, assessing, or receiving, directly or indirectly, for any existing or previously rented apartment, rents in any form in excess of that charged for the same apartment during the thirty-day period ending August 14, 1971; and
“The defendant is hereby ORDERED and mandatorily enjoined to restore the rents charged by him for each apartment to the level charged for the same apartment during the thirty-day period ending August 14, 1971, and to restore the status quo ante by making restitution to all tenants of all rents charged and received in excess of those amounts which were charged and received during the thirty-day period ending August 14, 1971; and
“It is further ORDERED that all court costs herein incurred shall be adjudged against defendant.”