I'.K) Contempoiuiy Agricultural Law. 



to year, the compensation paya])le in respect of an improvement 

 comprised in the Third Schedule to the Act {i.e., market garden 

 improvements) shonhl be such (if any) as couhl have ])een 

 claimed if the Act had not been passed. The tenant held 

 under a yearly tenancy, current on January 1, 1896. The 

 property was at that date used as a market garden with the 

 knowledge of the landlord, and the tenant had before and after 

 January 1, 1896, executed thereon without having received 

 written notice of dissent from the landlord, improveinents in 

 respect of which a right of compensation was given l)y the 

 Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895. The tenant Kedwell 

 on the determination of her tenancy claimed for market garden 

 improvements on the ground that she was entitled thereto 

 under Section 4 of the Act of 1895, inasmuch as her tenancy 

 was one current at the commencement of that Act. In opposi- 

 tion to her claim it was contended that her tenancy could not 

 now be treated as one current on January 1, 1896, inasmuch as it 

 was a yearly tenancy, and the Agricultural Holdings (England) 

 Act, 1883, Section 61, provided that a tenancy from year to 

 year under a contract of tenancy current at the commencement 

 of the Act (January 1, 188-4) should be deemed to continue to lie 

 a tenancy under a contract of tenancy current at the commence- 

 ment of that Act until the first day on which either the land- 

 lord or tenant could, the one by giving notice to the other 

 immediateh' after the commencement of the Act, cause such 

 tenancy to determine, and on and after such day should be 

 deemed to be a tenancy under a contract of tenancy beginning 

 after the commencement of the Act, and that it was further 

 provided l)y Section 1 of the Market Gardeners' Compensation 

 Act, 1895, that it should be read and construed as part of the 

 Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883. It was therefore 

 said on the landlord's liehalf that the tenancy had ceased to be 

 a " tenancy current at the commencement of the Act " on 

 October 11, 1897, the earliest date on which, if notice to 

 determine the tenancy had been given on January 1, 1896, it 

 could have been determined. The Court of Appeal held that 

 the landlord's contention was correct, as the provisions of 

 Section 61 of the Act of 18K3 as to a current tenancy must 

 be read into the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895. 

 The result is that it has been decided that a tenant from year 

 to year who still hohls under a contract of tenancy which was 

 in force on January 1, 1896, a holding which was at that 

 date iised to the knowledge of the landlord as a market garden 

 cannot in the absence of any express agreement that the 

 liolding should be let or treated as a market garden establish 

 a right to compensation for market garden improvements (e.g., 

 planting of fruit trees, fruit bushes, strawberry plants, asparagus, 



