<p style="text-align: center;"><strong><u>JUDGMENT</u></strong></p><p><strong>AMMAH J. </strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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 th…</p>