Pinsky

This is an appeal from a judgment requiring the appellants, as part owners of certain housing accommodations in Los Angeles, to .refund to the United States for the benefit of certain named tenants, sums claimed to have been overcharges of rent. The action was brought in the name of the Blousing Expediter. The principal defense was that under the terms of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, Title 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1881 et seq., the establishment in which these housing accommodations were located was a hotel and hence within an express exception to that portion of the Act which defined “controlled housing accommodations”.

We are first confronted with the appellant’s contention that the cause should 'have been dismissed for the reason that there is no proper party plaintiff. The action was' commenced March 25, 1949. At that time the right to institute such an .action in his 'own name was vested in the Housing Expediter by virtue of Executive Order 9841, 50 .U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 601 note, 12 Fed.Reg. pp. 2645, 2646. By a subsequent Executive Order No. 10,276, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1898 note, issued July 31, 1951, 16 Fed.Reg. p. 7535, the office of the Housing…