10 
The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906. 
cause, and for reasons inconsistent with good estate manage- 
ment. (2) Where the landlord has been requested in writing 
at least one year before the expiration of a tenancy, to grant 
a renewal thereof and refuses to do so. (3) Where it has been 
proved that an increase of rent is demanded from the tenant 
and that such increase was demanded by reason of an increase 
in the value of the holding due to improvements which have 
been executed by, or at the cost of, the tenant and for which 
he has not, either directly or indirectly, received an equivalent 
from the landlord, and such demand results in the tenant 
quitting the holding. 
Since the tenant’s right to compensation depends upon his 
ability to bring himself within one of the three classes of cases, 
it is obvious that here is a fertile field for controversj' and debate. 
The first point upon which information will be sought is what 
burden of proof is cast upon the landlord. Does the mere fact 
that he has given a tenant notice to quit raise a presumption that 
it was without good and sufficient cause, and for reasons incon- 
sistent with good estate management, or is the burden of proof 
cast upon the tenant ? In other words, must a tenant make out 
an affirmative case, or must a landlord ? Supposing for instance 
that a landlord gives his tenant notice to quit and states in a 
letter accompanying the notice that he has given the notice 
because he desires to increase the size of an adjoining holding, 
and he is of opinion that the best way to do this is to reduce 
the size of the farm. Would this be good estate manage- 
ment ? Could the tenant say that this was a reason inconsistent 
with good estate management, for good estate management 
would not contemplate any such alteration ? Again, must 
good and sufficient cause be regarded from the landlord’s or 
the tenant’s point of view ? If the former view is to be taken, 
do the words mean anything in addition “ to the reasons incon- 
sistent with good estate management” to which they are joined 
by the conjunction, “and”? No one could doubt that 
the landlord would maintain his opinion strenuously, and I 
suppose few would deny that the tenant would repudiate it 
with equal vigour. The tenant would say. If I admit that you 
have given me a plausible reason for serving the notice to 
quit, that is not good and sufficient cause to me. Why 
should I suffer because you contemplate making for yourself 
a beneficial alteration in your holdings? It may well be left 
to the perplexed arbitrator to resolve the meaning of these 
indefinite terms in his own way, unaided and untrammelled by 
any judicial guidance. 
The second of the three alternative grounds does not give 
rise to the considerable difficulties that the indefinite terms 
employed in the first alternative do, for subject to -the 
