ALAMEDDINE BROTHERS vs. PATERSON ZOCHONIS AND CO., LTD. [1971]DLCA2072

Date	1971-07-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLCA2072

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

SOWAH JA

ARCHER J.A.

P. A. ADJETEY FOR THE APPELLANTS.

LAING FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1971]DLCA2072
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ALAMEDDINE BROTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>PATERSON ZOCHONIS AND CO., LTD. <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 2 GLR 403<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
19 JULY 1971.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

P. A.
ADJETEY FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

SIRIBOE J.S.C., SOWAH AND ARCHER JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the concurrent judgments of the District Magistrate’s Court and
the High Court, Accra, both upholding the validity of a notice to quit given by
the respondents to the appellants under section 17 (1)(h) of the Rent Act, 1963
(Act 220), and granting the respondents’ claim to possession of a shop occupied
by the appellants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Some time
in 1958, upon an oral grant, the appellants took possession of one store in
premises No. D 893/3, situate at Selwyn Market Street owned by the respondents
at a monthly rent of N¢80.00 per month. About July 1959, the appellants applied
to the rent assessment committee for an assessment of the premises and this was
duly done. The monthly rent was reduced to N¢45.00 which thereafter became the
standard rent of the store.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellants appeared to have enjoyed quiet possession until 12 January 1967,
when they received the following notice:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“I the
undersigned give you one (1) month’s notice from the date hereof on behalf of
my client Paterson Zochonis and Co., Ltd. to quit and deliver up possession of
the premises at Selwyn Market Street in respect of which you are its tenant. My
client requires to use the premises for its business purposes.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>They
immediately caused a reply to be sent by their solicitors disputing the
respondents’ right to possession. Notwithstanding this denial, the respondents
proceeded on 16 February 1967, to give a further notice of six months in
accordance with the Act.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On or
about 14 September 1967, the respondents took out a writ in the magistrate’s
court claiming possession after reciting some of the facts already herein
referred to. Though the appellants, in a court of summary jurisdiction, were
not obliged to file a statement of defence unless so ordered or upon agreement
with the opposing party, nevertheless they thought it expedient to do so.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In that
defence, the appellants recounted their period of occupation of the store,
questioned the bona fides of the respondents and the reasonableness of the
request. They further denied the validity of the notice to quit and averred
that the said notice was incompetent to terminate the tenancy; they raised the
issue of hardship which would ensue from their ejectment. In short, every
conceivable defence which would avail a defendant in such circumstance was
raised.<o:p></o:p>