G. KINGSLEY OWUSU v. J. A. AIDOO

Judgment :

The only point raised in this appeal is whether the learned Magistrate exercised his discretion rightly in refusing to order possession in Appellant's favour of a Store at Kingsway Street, the property of the Appellant, but of which the Respondent was, and had been the Appellant's tenant since the year 1940.

Some time earlier the Appellant, according to his case, had under stress given up his own occupation of another Store in a neighbouring street which he rented of his wife or concubine, but not under an order of the Court. He admits that his eviction on the part of his wife was unlawful but he says that he had quarrelled with her and he felt under a moral duty to vacate her premises when she became difficult and demanded possession rather than to resort to the Rent Restriction Regulations.

In these circumstances he now invokes the aid of Section 8(d) of Regulation No. 18 of 1943 claiming that he reasonably requires the premises in dispute for his personal occupation, and he contends on the appeal that the learned Magistrate disregarded the Appellant's paramount necessity for possession of his own store as against the Respondent in order to carry on a business that was paralysed for want of premises.

In his judgment the Magistrate found as a fact that the Appellant left his wife's store of his own accord without any lawful order and held that he was not satisfied that the Appellant reasonably requires the store occupied by the Respondent for his, the Appellant's own business.

The question whether premises are reasonably required by a landlord for his own use is a question of fact for the Court. In considering whether it is reasonable or not to make an order for possession the Court considers the interests of the landlord and of the tenant.

The test to apply in the exercise of a judicial discretion is has there been a miscarriage of justice.

Where, as in this case, a landlord elects upon his wife's good grace to occupy her store whilst letting out his own premises at profit, can he, on falling out with his wife and vacating her store in order to assuage her, claim that he reasonably requires his own premises for his own use.

The case may be one of some hardship, if the circumstances in which he felt obliged to leave his wife's store are correctly stated by the Appellant, but I am satisfied that the Magistrate was right, in declining to exercise his discretion in the Appellant's favour and that there has been no miscarriage of justice.