On that score, section 36 of the Rent Act (Act 220) clearly prescribed that: “remodelling” in respect to premises does not include the demolition of the premises and the construction on the land on which the premises were situated of new premises, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly. We wholly agree with the conclusions of the Court of Appeal with regard to the meaning and scope of the term ‘remodelling and renovation’ and the fact that this obligation did not and could not have encapsulated an option to demolish the five-bedroom building. From the outset, it is clear that within the context of the Rents Act, 1962 (Act 220), which regulates tenancy agreements like that implicated in the instant case, the use of the term remodelling did not contemplate an opening for the Defendant to demolish the building at his discretion and reconstruct other apartments.