Compensation for Disturbance. ' 9 
“ (a) Unless the tenant has given to the landlord a reason- 
able opportunity of making a valuation of such goods 
implements produce and stock as aforesaid ; or 
“ (&) Unless the tenant has within two months after he has 
received notice to quit or a refusal to grant a renewal of the 
tenancy as the case may be given to the landlord notice in 
writing of his intention to claim compensation under this 
section ; or 
“ (c) Where the tenant with whom a conti’act of tenancy 
was made has died within three months before the date of the 
notice to quit or in the case of a lease for years before the 
refusal to grant a renewal ; or 
“ {d) If the claim for compensation is not made within three 
months after the time at which the tenant quits the holding. 
“ In the event of any difference arising as to any matter 
under this section the difference shall in default of agreement 
be settled by arbitration.” 
The section is here set out in extenso, and it is obvious 
that it contains a material enlargement of the existing law 
with reference to tenant right. Hitherto, the legislature in 
Agricultural Holdings Acts has proceeded on the lines of com- 
pensating a tenant for such improvements as have been made 
by him, but has conferred no security from disturbance other 
than such as he might have had the forethought to obtain 
for himself by the terms of his lease. One small amendment 
only in the law of landlord and tenant has been made by 
Section 33 of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883, namely, 
the substitution of a year’s notice in the case of agricultural 
tenancies for the six months’ notice, which is implied 
in every yearly tenancy, but it has been possible even to 
contract out of this provision, and there are undoubtedly 
agricultural tenancies existing at the present time where the 
tenant is liable to be evicted on a six months’ notice. No 
attempt is made in the present Act to restrict the right of 
contracting out, nor is a landlord forbidden to determine 
a tenancy. It says, however, to him in some cases — If 
you exercise your undoubted right you must compensate 
the tenant. In other words, the notice to quit is clogged 
with a condition intended to prevent unfair or cap- 
ricious eviction. Whether any eviction can be termed unfair 
or capricious in view of the fact that it can only be given in 
accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreed upon by the 
parties prior to the commencement of the tenancy, may be 
a matter of opinion. The new law, however, assumes that 
such a position exists and provides for the compensation of the 
tenant in the following instances : (1) where the notice to quit 
has been given by the landlord without good and sufficient 
