374:= 108 
Evglish Land Law. 
Landlord's 
prior consent 
to, not neces- 
sary. 
Notice. 
Assessment in 
respect of. 
'I'liird-class 
iniprovcmenls. 
proof of the necessity of such an improvement and of the title to' 
compensation for it. But the landlord may seek to reduce the,' 
claim on the ground that too much has been done; that the' 
work of boning, chalking, marling, &c., has been injudiciously' j 
carried out, or has proved partially ineffectual through want ol 
proper skill or care. 
The reason why it is competent for the landlord under § 8 i 
to question whether the sum spent by the tenant has been " pro- 
perly laid out " is to be found in another distinction drawn ir ' 
the Act between the two classes of improvements. If the tenan 
chooses to make a second-class improvement he need not obtaii 
the previous consent of the landlord, and may establish a con 
ditional claim even contrary to the landlord's express wish i 
All he is bound to do (§ 12) is to give the landlord notice i 
not less than one week and not more than six weeks beforehand | 
of his intention to make the improvement. This notice give } 
the landlord the opportunity of inspecting the work done, am i 
of seeing that it is properly done, though the Act provide l 
no machinery for such supervision. The notice also gives th ^ 
landlord the opportunity of at once stopping the improvemer i 
by giving the tenant notice to quit, because there is an expres { 
provision that the tenant can no longer claim compensation fc j 
second-class improvements executed after receipt of notice t { 
quit (§ 12). Moreover, if the tenant has either given or receive i 
notice to quit, he is forbidden to make any of the six improve j 
ments unless he receives the landlord's written consent (§ 12 ij 
Thus no tenant under notice can commit the landlord to a | 
expenditure which will mainly fall upon the latter, and whi( f| 
will certainly set up a troublesome claim, and perhaps end : i 
expensive litigation. A tenant under notice can have no rig a 
to farm for his successor, and compel his landlord to co \ 
tribute possibly six-sevenths of the money. j 
Claims for improvements of the second class are ^o be assesst ^ 
upon one basis only — that laid down by the Act in the case i 
absolute owners. They are not affected by the status of t j 
landlord. How much, therefore, or how little they have add' || 
to the letting value of the holding is immaterial. If the refere i 
find that the improvement is good for the full term of sev a 
years, the claim for a second-class improvement abates eve c 
year by one-seventh of the amount " properly laid out " upi. | 
such improvement, beginning with the year of tenancy in whi t 
the outlay is made. But the amount of compensation award ■ 
varies, of course, with what is found to be the "life" oft | 
])articular improvement, as in the case of improvements 
the first class. 
As to TIdi-d-Class Imprai'cmcnts. — These fall within t 
