(2) That he has failed to pay the rent due, or to remedy any breach of a condition of the tenancy consistent with good husbandry.
(3) That he has materially prejudiced the interests of the landlord by committing a breach which was not capable of being remedied of any condition of the tenancy consistent with good husbandry.
(4) That he has become bankrupt.
(5) That he has refused or failed to agree to a demand by the land lord as to the rent to be paid for the holding.
(6) That he has refused or failed to comply with a demand by the landlord to execute an agreement setting out the terms of the tenancy.
If the tenant is given notice to quit the holding compensation is payable to him by the landlord unless he states that the notice is given for one or more of these reasons.
The landlord may at any time apply to the agricultural com mittee for the area in which the holding is situated for a certificate that the tenant is not cultivating the holding according to the rules of good husbandry. The committee has to give both land lord anti tenant the opportunity of being heard and must grant or refuse the application within one month. Either the landlord or tenant, if he does not accept the decision of the agricultural committee, may require that the question as to whether the hold ing is being cultivated in accordance with the rules of good hus bandry be referred to an arbitrator whose decision is final.
The tenant has a right to demand that the question of the amount of rent to be paid in future shall be referred to arbitra tion, and if the landlord refuses, the tenant, if he quits the hold ing for that reason, is entitled to compensation.
The English landlord and tenant system, as developed from feudalism into its present form, is unique. Under no other system has the occupier of land so much control and the owner so little. The liabilities of the landlord for the equipment and upkeep of the farm remain unaffected but the effect of recent legislation is to make him otherwise little more than a rent-receiver.
But in some countries the tenancy system as developed in Eng land—that is the letting of farms by free contract on money rents—prevails somewhat extensively.
In Belgium, for example, about three-fourths of the farms are let on lease or annual tenancy. Leases for nine years, with option for either party to break the lease at three or six years, are usual and leases for 15 or 18 years are sometimes granted. In the i8th century emphyteutic tenures—i.e., leases of a length varying from 27 to 99 years, giving the tenant the right to erect buildings at his own cost—existed widely but these have greatly diminished. It is said that examples of leases existed in Flanders as early as the 13th century, but the very earliest form of tenure generally adopted was metayage which was gradually replaced by a system known as "cheptal" which was in fact practically the stock and land lease system then common in England. By the end of the 18th century "cheptal" had disappeared and although metayage still survives the landlord and tenant system is now predominant.
Flanders led the way in modern methods of husbandry and in the 16th and 17th centuries was held up, not unjustly, as a model for English farming.
In Denmark over 9o% of the agricultural holdings are owned by the occupiers and tenancies are rare. But a new form of ten ancy has been created, under an act passed in 1919, which placed in the possession of the State 120,000 acres of land suitable for small holdings. The applicants for these holdings are offered the choice of purchase or tenancy. If they choose tenancy they pay rent to the State equal to 44 per cent of the value of the land. They have absolute security of tenure subject to the condition that they cultivate the holding satisfactorily. Indeed provided they comply with this condition and pay the fixed rent they have all the rights of ownership including the right of passing on the tenancy of the holding to their heirs.