Such provisions, however, were not invoked here, but the request for increased rents was based entirely upon the further provision that "Any landlord may petition the Administrator to adjust the maximum-rent ceiling or minimum-service standard, or both, applicable to his housing accommodations to compensate for (1) a substantial rise, since January 1, 1941, in taxes or other maintenance or operating costs or expenses." In Rosen v. Powers, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 200, the Administrator dismissed a petition for adjustment of rents by a landlord after one of his examiners found that the records of expenses for the year ended January 1, 1941, contained numerous errors and subsequent records were not kept according to sound accounting principles. The examiner concluded that the evidence presented was inadequate to form a basis for adjustment of the rent ceiling and recommended an order dismissing the petition.

Other standards for adjustment of rent ceilings are set out in the Act and to prevail, petitioner must bring himself within their provisions. Rosen v. Powers, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 200, citing Hall v. Ring Management Co., D.C.Mun.App., 63 A.2d 656. But in any view of the case as it is now before us, the Administrator's determination of the ceilings was under Section 2 of the Act, from which determination no appeal lies.

The examiner's findings were dated November 17, 1948, effective November 29, 1948, whereas the first of our decisions criticizing such general findings was dated December 22, 1948, Winkler v. Ballard, D.C.Mun.App., 63 A.2d 660. See also Hall v. Ring Management Co., D.C.Mun.App., 63 A.2d 656; Proctor v. Miller, D.C.Mun.App., 63 A.2d 665; Shapiro v. Bombardier, D.C.Mun.App., 63 A.2d 772; Crisp v. Giles, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 204; Crisp v. Caldwell, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 206; Rosen v. Powers, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 200; Sharpe v. Goldwyn, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 185; Newberry v. H.L. Rust Co., D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 342. At the hearing before the examiner there was a decided difference between occupants as to services rendered, some expressing themselves as thoroughly satisfied while others severely criticized the management for failure to make repairs and furnish other services to occupants who paid on a monthly basis.

People v. S.A. Schwartz Co., 7 Misc.2d 635, 641, 161 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1016 (Sup.Ct. 1957). See also, Rosen v. Powers, 65 A.2d 200 (D.C. Mun. App. 1949). The trial judge's conclusion that the wiring leading to all apartments so as to increase the electrical service available for air conditioning constitutes a major capital improvement is amply supported by the credible evidence.