Page:EB1911 - Volume 16.djvu/178

Rh rent, which has accrued due since the forfeiture, by bringing an action for such rent, or by distraining for rent whether due before or after the forfeiture.

A tenancy may also be determined by merger, i.e. where a greater and a less estate coincide and meet in one and the same person, without any intermediate estate, as, for instance, when a tenant for years obtains the fee simple. There may also be a surrender, either voluntary or by operation of law, which will determine a tenancy, as, for example, when a tenant is party to some act, the validity of which he is legally estopped from denying and which would not have been valid had the tenancy continued to exist.

The land, on the expiration of the tenancy, becomes at common law the absolute property of the landlord, no matter how it may have been altered or improved during the occupation. In certain cases, however, the law has discriminated between the contending claims of landlord and tenant. (1) In respect of fixtures (which may be shortly defined as movables so affixed to the soil as to become part thereof), the tenant may sometimes remove them, e.g. when they have been brought on the premises for the purpose of being used in business (see ). (2) In respect of emblements, i.e. the profits of sown land, a tenant may be entitled to these whose term comes to an end by the happening of an uncertain contingency (see ). (3) A similar right is very generally recognized by custom in tenants whose term expires in the ordinary way. The custom of the district, in the absence of stipulations between the parties, would be imported into their contract—the tenant going out on the same conditions as he came in. Such customary tenant right only arises at the expiration of the lease, and on the substantial performance of the covenants; and is forfeited if the tenant abandons his tenancy during the term. Tenant right is assignable, and will pass under an assignment of “all the estate and interest” of the outgoing tenant in the farm. But, with the exceptions noted, the land in its improved condition passes over at common law to the landlord. The tenant may have added to its value by buildings, by labour applied to the land, or by the use of fertilizing manures, but, whatever be the amount of the additional value, he is not entitled to any compensation whatever. This again is a matter which the parties may, if they please, regulate for themselves.

The law as to Ejectment is dealt with under that heading.

Statutory Provisions.—Reference may be made, in conclusion, to a few modern statutes which have affected the law of landlord and tenant. The Agricultural Holdings Act 1908 (which repeals the Agricultural Holdings Acts of 1883, 1900 and 1906) gives to the agricultural tenant a right to compensation for (i.) certain specified improvements made by him with the landlord’s previous consent in writing; and (ii.) certain other classes of improvements although the landlord’s consent has not been obtained. As examples of class (i.) may be mentioned—erection or enlargement of buildings, laying down of permanent pasture, making of gardens or fences, planting of hops, embankments and sluices; as examples of (ii.)—chalking of land, clay burning, application to land of purchased artificial or purchased manure, except they have been made for the purpose of making provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration. In the case of proposed drainage improvements, notice in writing must be given to the landlord, who may then execute the improvements himself and charge the tenant with interest not exceeding 5% per annum on the outlay, or such annual instalments, payable for a period of twenty-five years, and recoverable as rent, as will repay the outlay, with interest at the rate of 3% a year. Under s. 11 of the act a tenant is entitled to compensation for disturbance, when he is compelled to quit without good and sufficient cause, and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management. An agricultural tenant may not contract himself out of his statutory right to compensation, but “contracting out” is apparently not prohibited with regard to the right given him by the acts of 1883 and 1900 to remove fixtures which he has erected and for which he is not otherwise entitled to compensation, after reasonable notice to the landlord, unless the latter elects to purchase such fixtures at a valuation. The Agricultural Holdings Act 1906 conferred upon every tenant (with slight exceptions) entire freedom of cropping and of disposal of produce, notwithstanding any custom of the county or explicit agreement to the contrary. (See further the articles, , .) The Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908, which repealed previous acts of 1887, 1890 and 1907, deals, on terms similar to those of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908, with small holdings and allotments (the expression “small holding” meaning an agricultural holding which exceeds one acre, and either does not exceed fifty acres, or, if exceeding fifty acres, is at the date of sale or letting of an annual value for the purposes of income tax not exceeding fifty pounds; the expression “allotment” includes a field garden). Section 47 of the act gives the tenant the same rights to compensation as if his holding had been a holding under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908 (vide supra). Compensation was given to market gardeners for unexhausted improvements by the Market Gardeners’ Compensation Act 1895 and by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1906 for improvements effected before the commencement of that act on a holding cultivated to the knowledge of the landlord as a market garden, if the landlord had not dissented in writing to the improvements. The important sections of these acts were incorporated in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908, s. 42.

Scots Law.—The original lease in Scots law took the form of a grant by the proprietor or lessor. But, with advancing civilization and the consequent increase in the number of the conditions to be imposed on both parties, leases became mutual contracts, bilateral in form. The law of Scotland as to landlord and tenant may be considered under two main heads:—I. Ordinary Leases, Common Law and Statutory; II. Building or Long Leases.

I. Ordinary Leases, Common Law and Statutory.—A verbal lease for a year is good. Such a lease for more than a year is not effectual even for a year, except where the lessee has taken possession. At common law, while a lease was binding on the grantor and his heirs, it was not good against “singular successors,” i.e. persons acquiring by purchase or adjudication, and the lessee was liable to be ejected by such persons, unless (a precaution usually taken) sasine of the subjects demised was expressly conferred on him by the lease. To obviate this difficulty, the Scots Act 1449, c. 18, made possession of the subjects of the lease equivalent to sasine. This enactment applies to leases of agricultural subjects, houses, mills, fisheries and whatever is fundo annexum; provided that (a) the lease, when for more than one year, must be in writing, (b) it must be definite as to subject, rent (which may consist of money, grain or services, if the reddendum is not illusory) and term of duration, (c) possession must follow on the lease. Special powers of granting leases are conferred by statute on trustees. (Trusts [Scotland] Act 1867, s. 2), curatores bonis (Judicial Factors [Scotland] Act 1889) and heirs of entail (cf. Entail Act 1882, ss. 5, 6, 8, 9). The requisites of the statutory leases, last mentioned, are similar to those imposed in England upon tenants for life by the Settled Land Acts (v. sup. p. 3). The rent stipulated for must not be illusory, and must fairly represent the value of the subjects leased, and the term of the lease must not be excessive (as to rent generally, see ). A life-renter can only grant a lease that is effectual during the subsistence of the life-rent. There is practically no limitation, but the will of the parties, as to the persons to whom a lease may be granted. A lease granted to a tenant by name will pass, on his death during the subsistence of the term to his heir-at-law, even if the lease contains no destination to heirs. The rights and obligations of the lessor and the tenant (e.g. as to the use of the produce, the payment of rent, the quiet possession of the subjects demised, and as to the payment of rates and taxes) are similar to those existing under English law. An agricultural lease does not, apart from stipulation, confer any right to kill game, other than hares and rabbits (as to which, see the Ground Game Act 1880, and ) or any right of fishing. A tenant is not entitled, without the landlord’s consent, to change the character of the subjects demised, and, except under an agricultural lease, he is bound to quit the premises on the expiration of the lease. In the case of urban leases, however, (q.v.)—called in Scots Law “removing”—will not be authorized unless the tenant received 40 days’ warning before the term of removal. In the absence of such notice, the parties are held, if there be nothing in their conduct or in the lease inconsistent with this presumption, to renew their agreement in all its terms, and so on from year to year till due notice is given. This is called “tacit relocation.” A lease may be transmitted (i.) by “assignation,” intimated to the landlord, and followed by possession on the part of the assignee; (ii.) by sub-lease—the effect of which is equivalent to that of under-lease in English law; (iii.) by succession, as of the heir of a tenant; (iv.) in the case of agricultural holdings, by bequest (Agricultural Holdings [Scotland] Act 1883, s. 29). A lease terminates (i.) by the expiration of its term or by advantage being taken by the party in whose favour it is stipulated, of a “break” in the term; (ii.) by the occurrence of an “irritancy” of ground of forfeiture, either conventional, or statutory, e.g. where a tenant’s rent is in arrear, or he fails to remove on the expiry of his lease (Act of Sederunt, 14th of Dec. 1756: Agricultural Holdings Act 1883, s. 27); (iii.) by the bankruptcy or insolvency of the tenant, at the landlord’s option, if it is so stipulated in the lease; (iv.) by the destruction, e.g. by fire, of the subject leased, unless the landlord is bound to restore it. Complete destruction of the subject leased, e.g. where a house is burnt down, or a farm is reduced to “sterility” by flood or hurricane, discharges the tenant from the obligation to pay rent. The effect of partial destruction has given rise to some uncertainty. “The distinction seems to be that if the