JUDGMENT OF AMMAH J.
This is an appeal by the defendant-appellants against the decision of the district court given on 4 November 1988. I would refer to the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellants hereinafter as the plaintiff and the defendants respectively.
The facts can be stated briefly. The plaintiff lodged a complaint to the rent officer that she required the rooms occupied by the defendants who were tenants in her house for the children of the landlord. The landlord is dead and the plaintiff is the caretaker of the house. According to her, the time she gave the defendants to quit had expired.
The defendants’ version at the rent office was that a son of the landlord one time demanded an advance of ¢10,000 but the second defendant did not have it owing to the sickness of her mother but promised to pay later. The defendants complained to the caretaker about leakage in the room and she asked them to repair it. As they were repairing it with iron sheets, the plaintiff stopped them on the ground that she wanted asbestos sheets to be used rather. She therefore stopped them from repairing the leakage. The plaintiff intimated she would increase the rents on completion of the roofing work. The plaintiff then gave them a notice to pack their things from the rooms but they had no place at the time to move to. On or about 24 June 1987 the roofing was removed from the building. It rained and their personal belongings became wet. They sent them to houses of some friends.
This incident resulted in a criminal court action but at the request of the plaintiff it was withdrawn and settled. The court ordered the plaintiff to re-roof the building which was done. The defendants were therefore waiting to pay the plaintiff whatever new rent she would demand when the plaintiff made the complaint to the rent officer.
The rent officer investigated the matter and recommended that the defendants should vacate the house by 31 July 1988 and to find alternative accommodation since they had not approached the plaintiff with any good reasons.
When the defendants were not vacating the house the plaintiff made a report to the rent officer who on 4 October 1988, referred his recommendations to the rent magistrate for the necessary order of ejectment under section 17(1)(g) of the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220).
When the matter came before the rent magistrate on 4 November 1988 counsel for the defendants submitted that the plaintiff’s complaint was not genuine and that the recom
