Agricultural holding — Compensation for disturbance — Defence Regulation 62(4a) — Prior consent of Minister to notice to quit not obtained — Tenant vacates — Notice bad, but requirements of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, Section 12(1) satisfied — Tenant entitled to claim compensation
This was an appeal by the landlords from a judgment of His Honour Judge Scobell Armstrong, sitting at Bodmin County Court.
In a special case stated under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, Schedule II, para 10, the arbitrator submitted to the County Court as a question of law whether a notice to quit an agricultural holding was a valid notice, despite the fact that the landlords, who were landlords within the meaning of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, Regulation 62(4a), had not first obtained the written consent of the Minister of Agriculture, so that the tenant, who had accepted the notice as legal and vacated the holding, was entitled to compensation for disturbance under Section 12(1) of the Act on the ground that his tenancy had terminated by reason of a valid notice to quit. The County Court Judge held that for the purpose of Section 12(1) the notice to quit was valid.
That decision was now affirmed by the Court of Appeal, who dismissed the landlords’ appeal, with costs. It was held that, the notice having been accepted as a good notice by the tenant, who had quitted the holding in consequence of it, the requirements of Section 12(1) were satisfied, although the notice to quit was bad under Regulation 62(4a), and the tenant was entitled to claim compensation for disturbance. The case of Westlake v Page [1926] 1 KB 299, was applied.
The judgment in this case is fully reported in the All England Law Reports, 1949, Vol 2, 749.
