SMITH J. This is an appeal from the decision of Quashie-Idun J., sitting in the Land Court, Accra, in which he gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff for arrears of rent amounting to £423 and for recovery of possession of premises at Tudu let by the plaintiff to the defendant.
The facts are simple. The parties entered into a tenancy agreement dated April 1, 1950, in respect of certain premises known as House No. E 19/2, Boundary Road, Tudu, Accra, at a rent of £660 per annum. The tenancy was for a period of five years as from April 1, 1950. The agreement also contained the usual provision restricting the defendant from sub-letting the premises or any part thereof without the approval and consent of the plaintiff. The defendant continued in possession of the premises after March 31, 1955, the date of expiry of the tenancy, and thereafter, as the trial judge found, became a statutory tenant.
In the action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant the claim was for (a) recovery of possession of the said premises; (b) £300 damages for breach of agreement under which the said premises were held; and (c) £423 arrears of rent. That part of the claim relating to damages for breach of the provision of sub-letting was not pursued before the trial judge and was not an issue argued in this appeal.
As regards the question of the claim for arrears of rent, it was admitted that the defendant paid rent at the rate of £45 from January 1, 1953, to the end of April 1955, instead of £55. The plaintiff's evidence was that this reduction was a temporary concession by him and that the defendant promised to pay the balance when he was in a better financial position to do so. The defendant, on the other hand, said it was the plaintiff who, on being approached, had agreed to reduce the rent from £55 to £45, as he was afraid that if he did not reduce the rent the Rent Assessment Committee would do so. There was no other witness on this matter. The defendant produced some twenty-nine receipts for rent paid since January 1953.
The learned trial judge believed the evidence of the plaintiff as to the reason he gave for accepting the smaller amount and gave judgment against the defendant accordingly for the arrears of rent as he claimed in the writ. It appears from the judgment of the trial judge that his decision was based solely on the oral testimony of the parties and that he did not take into consideration the receipts for rent tendered by the defendant and these, as Mr. A
