JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.
Some time in January 1962, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) was transferred from Takoradi to Tema as an employee of the Railways and Ports Corporation. He was at the time a tenant in house No. 202, Adiembra, premises of the State Housing Corporation.
He put his nephew by name Kwesi Mills in charge of the said house. While at Tema information reached him that the said Kwesi Mills had betrayed his responsibility by entrusting the control of the house to the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). Being perturbed by this indiscretion on the part of his nephew, the plaintiff rushed to Takoradi to verify the information. The information turned out to be true as the plaintiff met the defendant in occupation of the house. The latter admitted that Kwesi Mills entrusted the house to him. The defendant begged the plaintiff to allow him to occupy the premises as he had no alternative accommodation. The plaintiff agreed on the understanding or condition that the defendant would not effect a change in the tenancy agreement between the plaintiff and the [p.1192] State Housing Corporation by causing the plaintiff's name to be cancelled and replaced by the name of the defendant.
It is clear from the evidence that rents were being paid regularly to the State Housing Corporation in the name of the plaintiff by the defendant. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff was that whenever he travelled from Tema to Adiembra on a visit he stayed with the defendant in the said house. When the plaintiff was pensioned he gave notice to the defendant to quit the premises but the latter gave various excuses that he had nowhere else to move to. To his utter shock the plaintiff learnt that the defendant had made efforts to get his name substituted for that of the plaintiff as the tenant of the premises. This precipitated the action.
Paragraph 6 of the indorsement of the writ reads:
"Wherefore the plaintiff claims from the defendant to show cause why the defendant has taken the plaintiff's house No. 202 allocated to him by force against the plaintiff's will and therefore the plaintiff seeks an order of the honourable court for possession of his house from the defendant for the accommodation by the plaintiff."
The learned trial magistrate found that the plaintiff was the person recognised by the State Housing Corporation as tenant of the corporation occupying the premises. That being the case the position of the defendant co
