MASSOUD & ANOR. v. KHALIL & ORS.

JUDGMENT OF ACOLATSE J.

(His lordship stated the facts and history of the case, and proceeded:-)

Counsel for 2nd defendant submitted before us that no valid notice as required by section 11(1)(e) of the Rent Control Ordinance was given to that defendant by the plaintiffs, for on the date on which the plaintiffs purported to have given the notice the defendant was not a statutory tenant.

In our opinion, the learned trial-Judge has given a true interpretation of section 11(1)(e). After a careful consideration of the question raised by Mr. Akufo-Addo as to the construction and effect of section 11(1)(e) of the Rent Control Ordinance, we are of opinion that the notice contained in the letter (Exhibit “A”) was a valid notice to a tenant on his becoming a statutory tenant, taking effect as from the date he held over his tenancy on its determination.

It is clear from the section of the Ordinance that it can only be interpreted as meaning what it says, and that is where the lease has expired, and the tenant becomes a statutory tenant, and the landlord has given six months’ notice to the tenant of his intention to apply for an Order for the recovery of possession of, or ejectment from the premises. In this case the 2nd defendant as a statutory tenant has had, in fact, more that six months’ notice of the plaintiff’s intention.

In my opinion, the argument involved in this appeal cannot be maintained. I would there dismiss this appeal.

JUDGMENT OF GRANVILLE SHARP J.A.

I agree.

JUDGMENT OF SMITH J.

I agree.