Thе plaintiff appeals from a final decree declaring that certain premises in Somerville are situated in an оwner-occupied two-family house excepted from rent control. St. 1970, c. 842, § 3 (b) (6). The trial judge made findings, rulings and an order for decree, and the evidence is reported. We summarize the findings.
The defendant, Edith I. Walsh (Edith), now age seventy-six, and her husband acquired thе premises, a two-family house, in 1923 as tenants by the entirety. Since then she has lived continuously in the downstairs apartment; her husband diеd in 1955. In 1964 she conveyed the premises to her son, the defendant Paul T. Walsh (Paul), now age thirty-three, to manage them “as her agеnt.” He lived in the upstairs apartment with his wife, the defendant Irene B. Walsh, and their children until they moved to another residence in 1966. Thе plaintiff with his wife and seven children moved into the *534 upstairs apartment in 1966 as a tenant at will. Paul showed the apartment to the plaintiff and made all rental arrangements; rental payments were made to Paul.
In June and July, 1970, the plaintiff paid a monthly rent of $125. This was increased to $145, effective September 1, 1970. The plaintiff agreed and has since paid the increased rent. On January 1, 1971, rent control took effect in Somerville, and rents were rolled back to their June,. 1970, level. St. 1970, c. 842, § 6. Thereafter, Paul explained the circumstances to the secretary of the Somerville rent control board and was told the premises were covered by rent control so long as he held the title and was not an occupant. He then registered the premises, naming himself and his wife as landlords, and incorrectly recording the June, 1970, rental as $145 instead of $125. In August, 1971, the plaintiff learned of rent control and discovered the incorrect rental recorded on Paul’s registration form. At the suggestion of the board, the plaintiff sent a letter notifying Paul of his intent to pay a monthly rent of $125 effective January 1, 1971. On August 31, 1971, Paul conveyed the premisеs back to Edith.
The judge concluded that in 1964 Paul took only naked legal title to the premises, without any monetary consideration therefor, upon the express understanding that Edith was to be the beneficial owner. Since she was at .all times the beneficial owner, he ruled that the premises were excepted from rent control as “owner-occupied” under § 3 (b) (6) оf the statute, notwithstanding the fact that Paul held record title. In all other respects, the final decree dismissed the plaintiff’s bill оf complaint. On appeal the plaintiff argues, first, that Paul was the owner for the purposes of the rent control stаtute, and, second, that his reconveyance to Edith was undertaken solely to defeat the purposes of the statutе and was of no effect. In the view we take of the case, we need deal only with the first argument.
1. The plaintiff first attacks the finding that Edith was the beneficial owner, relying in part on the statute
*535
of frauds, G. L. c. 259, § 1. That statute was not pleaded, and in any event it is inаpplicable. Oral trusts of land are rendered unenforceable by G. L. c. 203, § 1, but that statute does not prevent the partiеs from recognizing the oral understanding by conveying the land in accordance with it.
Perkins
v.
Hilton,
2. There is room for doubt whether “owner” in the exception of “owner-occupied” two-family houses from rent control refers to beneficial ownership or to legal or record ownership. See
Kirby
v.
Assessors of Medford,
Such facts relate more to beneficial ownership than to legal or record ownership. Their force is somewhat weakened if the beneficial owner turns over the manage *536 ment of the rental portion to a professional real estate agent. In the present case there was undisputed testimony that the agent-son of the beneficial owner was a plumber, аnd there is no indication that he managed any other real estate. In any event, the statute does not distinguish between landlоrds or agents who are professionals and those who are amateurs. It is suggested that there may be some administrative convenience in looking solely to record ownership, but that would seem to invite a nonoccupant landlord to evade rent control by transferring record ownership to a tenant who resides in the two or three family dwelling.
We think the statute refers to beneficial ownership. It follows that the judge correctly ruled that the premises were “owner-occupiеd.”
3. The plaintiff contends that the inequitable conduct of the defendants bars them from seeking declaratory relief. So fаr as Paul’s registration of the premises as premises subject to rent control, with Paul and his wife as landlords and a rent of $145 in June, 1970, mаy have misled the plaintiff to his injury, the elements of equitable estoppel may be made out. Such an estoppel сould not subject the premises to rent control, but it might bar the defendants from violating the provisions of the rent control statutе designed to guard against retaliatory eviction. St. 1970, c. 842, § 9. Compare G. L. c. 186, § 18, inserted by St. 1969, c. 701, § 1; G. L. c. 239, § 2A, inserted by St. 1969, c. 701, § 2. See
McLearn
v.
Hill,
Decree affirmed.