180 Contemporary Agricultural Law. 
would not receive compensation from the landlord, but that 
this increased rent w T as not proved to have been demanded by 
the landlord by reason of an increased value of the holding 
resulting from the improvements made by Bonnett. Bonnett 
claimed compensation for disturbance either under clause (a) 
or clause (b) of Section 11. It was held by the Court of 
Appeal that a notice to quit in order that a higher rent may be 
obtained is a “good and sufficient cause/’ and is not a reason 
“inconsistent with good estate management’ within the 
meaning of Section 11 (a) of the Act, and excluded the 
operation of the section giving the tenant a right to com- 
pensation for disturbance under clause (a). The Court 
approved of the observations on this point of Lord Dunedin 
in the Scottish case of Brown v. Mitchell (1910, S.C., 369), 
which is referred to on pp. 131 and 132 of Yol. 71, Journal 
R.A.S.E., where he said that the meaning of the Act was “to 
give compensation for what may be characterised as capricious 
disturbance on the part of the landlord in capriciously putting 
an end to the lease.” It was also held that the burden of proof 
prima facie lies on the tenant under Section 11 (b) of the 
Act to show, where an increase of rent has been demanded, that 
such increase was demanded by reason of an increase in the 
value of the holding due to improvements executed by or at 
the cost of the tenant, for which he has not either directly or 
indirectly received an equivalent from the landlord, and that 
such demand has resulted in the tenant quitting the holding. 
As the arbitrator had found that this had not been proved the 
tenant’s claim for compensation for disturbance also failed 
under Section 11 ( b ). 
The Scottish case of Taylor v. Steel Maitland (1913, S.C., 
562) is important on the question of compensation for market 
garden improvements, as the wording of Section 42 of the 
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, corresponds with Section 29 
of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, which deals 
with the rights of tenants of market garden holdings in 
Scotland. The tenant held under a lease current on January 1, 
1898 (which corresponds with the date January 1, 1896, 
mentioned in Section 42, Sub-section 2, of the English Act), 
a holding then cultivated in part as a market garden to the 
knowledge of the landlord, and therefore under the terms of 
the Act became entitled under Section 29, Sub-section 2, of the 
Act to claim compensation for the market garden improve- 
ments mentioned in the Third Schedule of the Act if he had 
“ then executed thereon without having received previously to 
the execution thereof any written notice of dissent by the 
landlord any improvement comprised in the Third Schedule 
to this Act . . . as if it had been agreed in writing that 
