JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.
Abban J. delivered the judgment of the court. The appeal is from the judgment of the Circuit Court, Accra. We may briefly state the facts of the case. The appellants (hereinafter may be referred to as the defendants) have been tenants in the premises known as House No. D.794/4, Granville Avenue, Okaishie, Accra, owned by the plaintiff-respondent.
The plaintiff-respondent, who had retired from the Government Service was in need of accommodation and so he approached the defendants on several occasions asking them to find alternative accommodation and move out of the premises. The defendants having failed to comply with the plaintiff's requests, the plaintiff served them with a written notice to quit. The notice was dated 6 September 1977 and on 7 February 1978 the plaintiff issued out his writ of summons for the recovery of possession.
The learned trial judge in a considered judgment held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to his claim and ordered the appellants to give up possession of the whole premises. The appellants, aggrieved by the said judgment, appealed to this court on two grounds, and the learned counsel for the appellants argued them in reverse order.
The first ground stated that the trial judge had totally misconstrued the provisions of section 17 (1) (g) of the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), under which the action was instituted. On this ground learned counsel forcefully submitted that the premises in dispute were not constructed exclusively as a dwelling-house but had a duality of purpose. He contended that in that respect, he was prepared to concede that the first floor could be classified as a dwelling-house, but the ground floor could not. The ground floor answered the description of business premises. So that if the plaintiff wanted possession of the ground floor as well, he should have resorted to section 17 (1) (h) instead of section 17 (1) (g). Counsel submitted that since section 17 (1) (h) made it obligatory on the plaintiff to give six months' written notice and as the written notice which the plaintiff gave to the defendants fell short of the said statutory period, the learned trial judge erred in law in granting the plaintiff possession in respect of the ground floor.
[p.176]
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent did not seem to have ready answer for this arguments in view of the wording of the writ of summons and also of the statement which was made during addresses by learned counsel who app
