SARKODEE J.: Judgment was entered for the plaintiff in this case for the sum claimed being arrears of rent. The learned magistrate went further and ordered the defendant to vacate the premises on or about 30 April 1972 even though counsel for the defendant drew his attention to the fact that the rent had been paid. The registrar of the court also directed the court’s attention to this fact stating that the whole amount (i.e. ¢44.00) claimed on the writ had been paid into court. The learned magistrate paid no heed to this and recorded that:
“However it is the court’s considered opinion that a substantial breach of the tenancy agreement was committed by the defendant and both exhibits A and B support that finding, quite apart from the fact that the amount claimed has been deposited in court.”
The defendant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned magistrate appealed to this court. The defendant set out four grounds; all of them, except the last ground, centred aro…