On the plaintiffs’ appeal we must determine whether or not the court committed error in refusing to submit the third issue. While on the defendant’s appeal we must determine whether or not there was error in submitting the fourth issue on the question of damages.
It is admitted that the plaintiffs, after purchasing the property occupied by the defendant and his family, proceeded in accordance with the Rules and Regulations issued pursuant to the Rent Control provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, and the amendments thereto. Title 50, U.S.C.A. App., sec. 901, et seq. It further appears that the plaintiffs are, in good faith, seeking to gain possession of the property for their own personal use and occupancy. The defendant offered no defense to this action other than his inability to find a suitable house in which to move.
Plaintiffs’ Appeal.
The plaintiffs insist that the third issue should have been submitted in view of the provisions of chapter 796, Session Laws of 1945, amending G. S., 42-32, as follows: “On appeal to the superior court, the jury trying issues joined shall assess the damages of the plaintiff for the detention of his possession to the time of the trial in that court; and, if the jury finds that the detention was wrongful and that the appeal was without merit and taken for the purpose of delay, the plaintiff, in addition to any other damages allowed, shall be entitled to double the amount of rent in arrears, or which may have accrued, to the time of trial in the superior court. Judgment for the rent in arrears and for the damages assessed may, on motion, be rendered against the sureties to the appeal.”
The property sought to be recovered is in the City of Charlotte, within a Rent Control Area, and is subject to the provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act and the Rules and Regulations issued pursuant thereto. The purpose of rent control is to make certain that landlords will collect only fair and reasonable rents for properties within the controlled area, which are occupied by tenants as living quarters. And the fact that a landlord may obtain permission from the Rent Control Office of the O.P.A. to institute an action under the local law for the possession of his property, does not release the property from the provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act. The rental value of the premises in controversy in this action was fixed by the Rent Control Office at $65.00 per month, and local statutes authorizing the collection of double rents or other damages for withholding the premises after notice to quit, cannot *753exceed tbe maximum rent fixed by tbe Office of Price Administration. Matskowsky, et al., v. Katz, 53 N. Y. S., 2nd, 430, 184 Misc., 60. Tbe. States of New Jersey and Florida, baying similar statutes, have restricted tbe application of these statutes in rent enforcement cases. Ricci v. Claire (N. J.), O.P.A. Opinions and Decisions, Vol. 1, p. 1989; Collins v. Ford (Fla.), O.P.A. Opinions and Decisions, Vol. II, p. 5053. See also Myers v. H. L. Rust Co., 134 Fed., 2nd, 417; Cannon v. Gordon, 48 N. Y. S., 2nd, 124. Ordinarily wben a tenant bolds oyer after tbe expiration of bis lease or a tenant from month to month refuses to quit after notice, tbe landlord is entitled to recover as damages for tbe wrongful withholding of tbe premises, tbe fair rental value of tbe property. This Court said in Sloan v. Hart, 150 N. C., 269, 63 S. E., 1037: “Tbe measure of damages appears settled by practically all tbe authorities to be tbe difference between tbe rent agreed upon and tbe market value of tbe term, plus any special damages alleged and proved. . . . By rental value is meant . . . what tbe premises would rent for, or by evidence of other facts from which tbe .rental value may be determined.” Martin v. Clegg, 163 N. C., 528, 79 S. E., 1105; Credle v. Ayers, 126 N. C., 11, 35 S. E., 128. But, so long as tbe Rent Control Act is effective in a particular locality, a landlord who owns rental property therein and subject to tbe provisions of tbe Act, cannot assert under tbe local law any right in conflict with said Act. Concord Estates v. Burke, 50 N. Y. S., 2nd, 635; Schwartz v. Trajer Realty Corp., 56 E. Supp., 930; Cannon v. Gordon, supra; Myers v. H. L. Rust Co., supra. Hence, tbe measure of plaintiffs’ damages is tbe rental value of tbe premises as fixed by tbe Office of Price Administration. These plaintiffs are entitled to tbe immediate possession of their property, but tbe court properly refused to submit tbe third issue set out herein.
DEFENDANT’S APPEAL.
In view of tbe disposition made of tbe plaintiffs’ appeal, and for tbe reasons stated therein, tbe exceptions noted to tbe plaintiffs’ evidence on tbe question of damages submitted on tbe fourth issue, must be sustained.
Tbe defendant asserted no legal defense to this action. Tbe difficulty be may encounter in obtaining suitable living quarters is not sufficient to defeat tbe right of tbe plaintiffs to recover possession of their property for their own use and occupancy. Bauer v. Neuzil, 152 P., 2nd, 47; Jones v. Shields, 146 P., 2nd, 735; Gould v. Butler, 31 A., 2nd, 867; New York Housing Authority v. Awant, 54 N. Y. S., 2nd, 571; New York Housing Authority v. Curington, 50 N. Y. S., 2nd, 445. Tbe plaintiffs, however, are only entitled to recover tbe rent as determined under tbe second issue and tbe immediate possession of tbe property as *754set forth, in the first issue. Except as modified herein,' the defendant’s appeal is affirmed.
Plaintiffs’ appeal, affirmed.
Defendant’s appeal, modified and affirmed.