Skinner, hereafter the Landlord, appeals from a judgment of the District Court in a proceeding under § 205 of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, § 1895, hereafter the Act, holding her liable to the appellees, hereafter the Tenants, for the difference between $30.00 per month, the rental fixed for the apartment when unfurnished and $125.00 per month charged after extensive structural changes were made remodeling the apartment, important facilities were added and the apartment furnished.

There is no question that the expenditures were for “structural changes involving substantial alterations.” The wall facings were torn off and expansion facing added. The wall between the bathroom and kitchen taken out and a new wall built, enlarging the bathroom. A laundry outside the ■ apartment and a roof garden were constructed for the tenants’ use and a hallway adding to the apartment’s privacy. However, there were no rooms added to the apartment and it remained the same dwelling unit.

The landlord failed to file with the Area Rent Director her petition for increase of the maximum rent in the proceeding provided in the regulations, until after she had charged and collected the $125.00 monthly rental for the period of a year before the tenants’ instant suit was filed. The landlord contends that though no dwelling unit was added, more extensive structural changes involving substantial alterations, brought her within the exception of the underlined portions of the following Rent Regulations under the Act.

We do not agree. We are controlled by the contrary interpretation of Sec. 1(2) [ii] (a) by the Housing Administration, the Supreme Court holding in Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 , at page 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215 , at page 1217, 89 L.Ed. 1700 , a price regulation case, that:

The interpretation construes the words “resulting in the creation of additional housing accommodations” as applying to “substantial alterations”, and states:

We cannot say of this interpretation that it is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation” and we accept it as we did in the analogous case of Feeley v. Woods, 9 Cir., 190 F.2d 228, 233 . Since there was no dwelling unit added to the apartment the judgment is affirmed.