Compensation for Disturhance. 
11 
provisos, which will subsequently be referred to, it would 
seem that a request in writing by the tenant to the landlord a 
year before the expiration of the tenancy asking him to renew 
the tenancy followed by a refusal would be suflBcient to ensure 
compensation for disturbance. It may be pointed out here that 
“ tenant ” under Section 61 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 
1883, means the holder of land under a landlord for a term 
of years, or for lives and years, or from year to year. The 
term also includes the executors, administrators, assigns, 
legatees, devisees, or the next of kin, husband, guardian, 
committee of the estate, or trustees in bankruptcy of a tenant, 
or any person deriving title from a tenant, and the right to 
receive compensation in respect of any improvement enures 
to the benefit of such executors, administrators, and assigns 
and other persons as aforesaid. 
To turn to the third alternative, this provides for the case 
where there has been a demand from the landlord for an 
increase of rent in conseciuence of which the tenant leaves the 
holding. It must be proved that this demand for increase was 
occasioned by an increase in the value of the holding due to 
improvements which have been executed by or at the cost of 
the tenant, and these improvements must be improvements for 
which he has not either directly or indirectly received an 
equivalent from the landlord. This alternative provides much 
controversial matter. The term “ improvements ” is not con- 
fined to the improvements comprised in the first schedule to 
the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900, but would mean all 
improvements. In respect of improvements, for instance, 
outside the first schedule it might be possible for an arbitrator 
to ascertain whether or not the tenant had obtained an 
equivalent from the landlord, but would a tenant receive an 
equivalent by obtaining the compensation already provided for 
him in respect of improvements under the first schedule to the 
Act of 1900 ? An equivalent is something of equal value, and 
what the landlord pays or is liable for as compensation to the 
outgoing tenant is such sum as fairly represents the value of 
the improvements to the incoming tenant. The value of an 
improvement may be gauged as between outgoing and 
incoming tenant on the basis of what the latter ought to pay, 
but is it necessarily the test to be applied by the section ? 
Again, the demand for an increase of rent must be due to 
improvements on the holding, for which neither directly or in- 
directly the tenant has received an equivalent from the landlord 
it may be a task of some nicety for the arbitrator to determine 
this. The landlord is clearly entitled to the unearned 
increment, rising for instance from the building of a branch 
railway line, which provides an easier and cheaper method of 
