Since the only answer requires homogeneous coordinates, a $3\times3$ matrix inversion, as well as a $3\times3$ matrix multiplication, here's something simpler, not as tedious to compute, and also more geometrically intuitive (it also gives a better idea what a linear map can do, and what it cannot).
A linear $2\times2$ transformation obviously cannot translate the origin, for this we will need a translation. We can find the translation from the difference between the lower left vertices of the house (since both should lie at the origin of their coordinate systems). We see that $(0,0)\rightarrow (3,2)$, then the translation is $(3,2)$. We can move the stretched and rotated house back to the origin: so that the lower left vertex coincides with $(0,0)$ (the initial position of it) by translating with $-(3,2)$. We'll pick two 'nice' points (in the sense that they have $0$ for one of their components and $1$ for the other): $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$. We can see from the image that $(1,0) \rightarrow (5,3) - (3,2) = (2,1)$ where the subtraction is necessary to move the transformed house back to the origin as already mentioned. Similarly: $(0,1) \rightarrow (1,3) - (3,2) = (-2,1)$. We want to find a matrix:
$$ M =\begin{bmatrix}
a & b\\
c & d\\
\end{bmatrix} $$
such that $M(1,0)^T = (2,1)^T$ and $M(0,1)^T = (-2,1)^T$. But this is trivial, since we get $(a,c) = (2,1)$ and $(b,d) = (-2,1)$. Thus you have: $v'=Mv+(3,2)$, where $v$ is a point from the original house, and $v'$ is the transformed such. Note that it is easy to see that this is simply scaling + rotation (45 degrees) + scaling:
$$ M =\begin{bmatrix} 2 & -2\\1 & 1\\ \end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix} 2 & 0\\0 & 1\\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & -1\\1 & 1\\ \end{bmatrix} \\= \begin{bmatrix} 2 & 0\\ 0 & 1\\ \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} \sqrt{2} & 0\\ 0 & \sqrt{2}\\ \end{bmatrix}$$
The right scaling may be moved inside the left one (since the right is uniform scaling, hence commutative, or just a multiplication by the scalar $\sqrt{2}$, I just thought it's geometrically more intuitive this way).