Contemporary  Agricultural  Law. 
133 
Scottish  Act  (corresponding  with  Section  11  of  the  English 
Act),  under  which  a question  arose  whether  the  onus  of  showing 
that  the  tenancy  was  terminated  by  the  landlord  “ without  good 
and  sufficient  cause  and  for  reasons  inconsistent  with  good 
estate  management,”  lay  on  the  landlord  or  tenant.  In  dealing 
with  this  important  point  the  Lord  President  said  : “ I think  one 
thing  is  clear  : first  of  all,  that  the  tenant  must,  if  I may  so 
phrase  it,  open  the  ball  by  saying  that  the  landlord  has,  without 
good  and  sufficient  cause,  terminated  the  tenancy.  But  if  he 
says  so,  and  if  he  says,*  I know  no  reason  whatever  why  I am 
being  turned  out,  and  therefore  I presume  it  is  without  good 
and  sufficient  cause,  and  for  reasons  inconsistent  with  good 
estate  management,’  it  seems  to  me  that  he  has  done  all  he 
could  do.  ...  It  seems  to  me  that  the  moment  the  tenant  has 
said  what  I have  said  that  it  rests  with  the  landlord  to  make 
the  next  move,  and  it  is  then  for  the  landlord  to  show  that 
there  is  some  reason  for  which  he  has  parted  with  the  tenant.” 
Further  on  he  adds,  “ What  reasons  are  capricious  and  what 
reasons  are  not  capricious  no  man  would  try  to  define,  because 
really  no  one  could  possibly  ab  ante  figure  all  the  possible 
reasons  for  which  a landlord  might  wish  to  get  rid  of  a tenant. 
But  of  this  I am  quite  sure  . . . there  may  be  perfectly  good 
reasons  for  getting  rid  of  a tenant  which  are  not  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word  agricultural  reasons,  and  a landlord  who  gets 
rid  of  a tenant  for  one  of  these  reasons,  being  a good  one,  is  not 
liable  under  this  clause.  . . . An  agricultural  reason  would  of 
course  be  that  the  tenant  is  a bad  farmer.  But  there  are  many 
other  classes  of  reasons.  For  instance,  there  is  the  reason  that 
the  rent  is  too  low,  and  that  the  tenant  will  not  give  any  more. 
That  would  be  a perfectly  good  reason.  Whether  you  could 
prove  that  was  so  or  not  would  depend  upon  different  circum- 
stances, and  the  best  proof  would  be  an  offer  from  somebody 
else  at  a largely  increased  rent.  . . . Good  estate  management 
means  getting  as  much  as  your  property  is  worth  . . . the  real 
object  of  the  clause  is  not  to  give  fixity  of  tenure,  but  to  provide 
for  compensation  if  there  has  been  capricious  action  on  the 
part  of  the  landlord  in  refusing  to  renew  the  lease.” 
In  a County  Court  case  of  Clewlow  v.  Briscoe  (129  L.  T.,  450), 
on  the  same  section,  H.H.  Judge  Harris  Lea  held  that  where 
a landlord  died  and  his  executors,  in  pursuance  of  a trust  for 
sale,  put  up  his  land  to  auction,  and  with  a view  to  the  sale  gave 
notice  to  quit  to  the  tenant  the  tenancy  had  not  been  terminated 
“without  good  and  sufficient  cause,”  and  therefore  that  the 
tenant  was  not  entitled  to  compensation  for  unreasonable 
disturbance. 
4.  Ground  Game.  In  May  v.  Waters  (1910,  1 K.B.,  431  ; 
79  L.J.K.B.,  250)  it  was  held  that  Section  (>  of  the  Ground 
