with the statutory scheme or would gravely interfere with the performance of a governmental function, or that Congress plainly intended to use the "sue and be sued" clause in a narrow sense, "it must be presumed that when Congress launched a governmental agency into the commercial world and endowed it with the authority to ‘sue or be sued,' that agency is not less amenable to judicial process than a private enterprise under like circumstances would be.” 309 U.S. at 245, 60 S.Ct. at 490. See also Merrill Tenant Council v. HUD, 638 F.2d 1086, 1090 (7th Cir.1981) (HUD not immune from suit brought by tenants of HUD-owned or operated property to recover interest on security deposits owed them under state law); Knox Hill Tenant Council v. Washington, 448 F.2d 1045, 1050-53 (D.C.Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>); Estrada v. Hills, 401 F.Supp. 429, 433
holding state of connecticut may sue new york state officials for declaratory and injunctive relief in federal district court in suit over lobster rights holding that there is an exception to eleventh amendment immunity for actions seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials for alleged violations of federal law holding under different federal housing laws than those involved here that tenants of hudowned property may sue hud for declaratory and injunctive relief under local and federal law regarding alleged failure properly to maintain property holding that the judicial immunity available to federal officers extends to section 1983 actions for declaratory and injunctive relief holding plaintiff had no right to recover attorneys fees under declaratory judgments act because declarations requested no greater or different relief than claim for injunctive relief for constitutional violation