ATTA BAFFOUR v. TEMA DEVELOPMENT CORP. _ ANOTHERR

JUDGMENT

OMARI-SASU:

The facts which prompted the present action in the Court below are simple and are not generally in dispute between the parties and may be stated as follows:—

The Plaintiff-Respondent had been invited by one E.Q. Quartey (now deceased) to come and live in House No. H.211/19, Tema.

The said late E.Q. Quartey was the tenant and the first Defendants (T.D.C.) were the landlords. Certain moneys possed from the Plaintiff-Respondent to the late Quartey which tendered to show that the premises had been sublet to the Plaintiff-Respondent but as the said transactions offended against the Rent Act — Act 220 and were done without the knowledge and consent of First Defendants those acts never enured to the benefit of Plaintiff-Respondent.

The second Defendant-Appellant, prior to the arrival of Plaintiff-Respondent had been put in the kitchen of the premises of the said late E.Q. Quartey and he lived there at rent free, for he performed household services for the said Quartey who was ailing.

In time, the said E.Q. Quartey died and the record shows that the tenancy of the premises was still in the name of the said E.Q. Quartey.

The plaintiff-Respondent then formally applied to the 1st Defendants-Appellants to be made tenant of the said premises and the 2nd Defendant on hearing this also went and saw an official of the 1st Defendants-Appellants who in time summoned both parties to appear and after the meeting 1st Defendants-Appellants gave the tenancy of the premises to 2nd Defendant-Appellant.

Aggrieved by this act, the Plaintiff-Respondent sued the Defendants-Appellants in the High Court. After the trial, judgment was entered by the Tema High Court for the Plaintiff-Respondent.

Both Defendants have appealed against the decision of the Tema High Court and their main ground is that the judgment is against the weight of evidence.

I support the judgment of the Court below that Plaintiff-Respondent should have been given the tenancy by the 1st Defendants-Appellants though not for the reasons assigned by the learned trial judge who wrongfully described the Plaintiff-Respondent as a statutory tenant. He is not.

It is trite law that a lease is a contract by which the right to the exclusive possession of land is granted by the landlord as lessor to the tenant or lessee for a consideration which is usually money.

This being so, it is usually necessary for a would-be tenant to apply to a landlord for the tenancy.

The record of proceedings from the