SERAPHIM vs. PACIFIC STORES AND OTHERS [1974]DLCA2332

Date	1974-04-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLCA2332

LASSEY JA

SOWAH JA

ARCHER J.A.

J. C. ARMAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

OFOSU ASANTE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1974]DLCA2332
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">SERAPHIM<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">PACIFIC STORES AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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;[1974] 1 GLR 301<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:
8 APRIL 1974.<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">

J. C.
ARMAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

OFOSU
ASANTE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

LASSEY, SOWAH AND ARCHER JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF LASSEY J.A.<o:p></o:p>Lassey
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. On 19 November 1973, this court
allowed an appeal in this case after hearing the submissions of counsel for the
parties, and reversed the decision of the trial court given in favour of the
defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s action for recovery of possession, and
the order for costs. In its place, there was substituted a judgment for the
plaintiff to recover possession of the demised premises together with an order
that the plaintiff was entitled to his costs in the court below as well as
those of the appeal assessed at ¢116.80. As the court was differing from the
learned trial judge, it proposed that it would give reasons for allowing the
appeal later.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appeal which was from the decision of a circuit court, Accra, raises the
question whether the plaintiff as landlord is entitled to be given possession
of certain demised premises in accordance with the requirements of the Rent
Act, 1963 (Act 220). The plaintiff ‘s action to recover possession was brought
through his lawful attorney against the defendants who are traders. The
defendants are tenants of the business premises of the plaintiff described as
house No. 822/4, Knutsford Avenue, Accra, comprising display shops or stores on
the ground floor. Each defendant occupies a store or shop, while an adjoining
wholesale is used by the plaintiff himself for his business purposes.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By virtue
of section 17 (1) (i), subparas. (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rent Act, 1963, if
a current tenancy has terminated and the tenant becomes a statutory tenant, and
the landlord, after giving six months’ notice to the tenant to quit,<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)
intends to pull down the premises and construct new premises,<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">(ii)
intends to remodel the premises and the remodelling cannot be carried out with
the tenant in occupation, or <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">(iii)
requires possession of the premises to carry out a scheme of re-development. .
. “<o:p></o:p>the court
is entitled to order possession of the demised premises to be given to the
landlord.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
given in evidence at the trial are that the plaintiff as landlord desires to
demolish part of the building in which the demised premises of the defendants
are situated in order to rebuild the same and render it more suitable. The condition
of the building is stated to be weak and dangerous because it is an old
building. To achieve this purpose, the plaintiff had the drawings of the new
renovations in the building prepared and the specifications drawn up. These he
submitted to the planning authority of the Accra-Tema City Council for
approval, and a permit was issued authorising the new works. He produced the
approved plan in evidence as exhibit C.<o:p></o:p>