The plaintiff who is the landlord of house No. C250/4, Kokomlemle, Accra, is claiming damages for trespass against the defendant who is allegedly unlawfully occupying his house and he is also asking for an order for recovery of possession.
The facts in this case are these: the plaintiff let house No. C250/4, Kokomlemle, to one Hood, the first witness for the plaintiff. on a monthly tenancy for a consideration of £G26 or N¢52 per month. Without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff the first witness for the plaintiff, let out a part of the said premises to the defendant. In 1965, the first witness for the plaintiff fell into arrears for the months of June, July and August and the plaintiff reported the matter to the rent officer in Accra. The first witness for the plaintiff, admitted his indebtedness to the plaintiff before the rent officer, but at the time the matter was being investigated at the rent office the first witness for the plaintiff had given up possession of the premises, and had asked the plaintiff to take possession. The defendant, however, stayed on despite a notice served on him by the first witness for the plaintiff to quit. This defendant also appeared before the rent officer and pleaded with him to convince the plaintiff to allow him, the defendant, to occupy the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff would not agree to this contending that he had agreed to let the premises to a company through an intermediary called John Boadu. It was at this stage that the rent officer warned the plaintiff that any attempt by him or John Boadu to throw out the personal effects of the defendant would be dealt with severely. It must be observed here that at the inquiry before the rent officer, the first [p.146] witness for the plaintiff asked the defendant to pay his arrears of two months to him to enable him, the first witness for the plaintiff, to make payment to the plaintiff. The amount involved was £G26 for the two months because the part let to him was at the monthly rent of £G13. The defendant brought out this amount and gave it to the first witness to the plaintiff, who passed it on to the plaintiff. The rent officer for obvious reasons which will be referred to later in this judgment insisted that the plaintiff should issue the receipt for this sum in the name of the defendant instead of in the name of the first witness for the plaintiff. The plaintiff unwillingly carried out the instructions of the rent officer and prepared the receipt in
