JUDGMENT OF LASSEY J.A.
Lassey J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. On 19 November 1973, this court allowed an appeal in this case after hearing the submissions of counsel for the parties, and reversed the decision of the trial court given in favour of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's action for recovery of possession, and the order for costs. In its place, there was substituted a judgment for the plaintiff to recover possession of the demised premises together with an order that the plaintiff was entitled to his costs in the court below as well as those of the appeal assessed at ¢116.80. As the court was differing from the learned trial judge, it proposed that it would give reasons for allowing the appeal later.
The appeal which was from the decision of a circuit court, Accra, raises the question whether the plaintiff as landlord is entitled to be given possession of certain demised premises in accordance with the requirements of the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220). The plaintiff 's action to recover possession was brought through his lawful attorney against the defendants who are traders. The defendants are tenants of the business premises of the plaintiff described as house No. 822/4, Knutsford Avenue, Accra, comprising display shops or stores on the ground floor. Each defendant occupies a store or shop, while an adjoining wholesale is used by the plaintiff himself for his business purposes.
By virtue of section 17 (1) (i), subparas. (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rent Act, 1963, if a current tenancy has terminated and the tenant becomes a statutory tenant, and the landlord, after giving six months' notice to the tenant to quit,
"(i) intends to pull down the premises and construct new premises,
(ii) intends to remodel the premises and the remodelling cannot be carried out with the tenant in occupation, or
(iii) requires possession of the premises to carry out a scheme of re-development. . . "
the court is entitled to order possession of the demised premises to be given to the landlord.
The facts given in evidence at the trial are that the plaintiff as landlord desires to demolish part of the building in which the demised premises of the defendants are situated in order to rebuild the same and render it more suitable. The condition of the building is stated to be weak and dangerous because it is an old building. To achieve this purpose, the plaintiff had the drawings of the new renovations in the building prepared and the specifications drawn
