The suit, brought under Section 205 of •the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, 50 U. S.C.A. Appendix, § 1895, was for $840 for rent overcharges.

The district judge, “being persuaded”, as he says, “by the authority of Fields v. Washington, 3 Cir., 173 F.2d 701”, and noticing “ex mero mo tu its lack of jurisdiction”, dismissed the cause because the amount in controversy was less than $3,000.

Plaintiff, appealing, is here insisting that the district judge erred. In addition to presenting supporting reasons for his view, he cites, as better reason, Adler v. Northern Hotel Co., 7 Cir., 175 F.2d 619, writ of certiorari denied, Arlington, Inc., v. Mayer, 339 U.S. 965, 70 S.Ct. 1000, and many district court cases taking a view contrary to that expressed in the Fields case.

We agree with appellant. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further and not inconsistent proceedings.

I dissent.