Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, Section 25(1)(a) — Landlords’ application for consent to notice to quit on grounds of desire to sell with vacant possession to wind up an estate — Allegations of bad farming by the tenant — Not definite successor to tenant named
The decision in this case, heard before the Agricultural Land Tribunal for the South-West Province, was given on April 6. The landlords gave the tenant notice to quit without stating any particular reason and, after counter-notice by the tenant, applied for the necessary consent of the Minister to the operation of the notice to quit, alleging in support that they desired to sell the holding with vacant possession so as to wind up their testator’s estate to the best advantage, but they gave no evidence as to who the new occupier of the holding might be. The landlords alleged that the tenant was not farming the holding well and that it should be assumed that a new occupier would do better. The appropriate County Committee had accepted the landlords’ contentions and had given the Minister’s consent to the operation of the notice to quit.
Held: (1) That the onus of proof was on the landlords to satisfy the Tribunal that under Section 25(1)(a) it would be in the interests of efficient farming that the landlords’ purpose should be carried out, and that in the above circumstances it was a matter of speculation whether the ultimate occupier would be any better than the present tenant, and accordingly on the facts the landlords had not established their case.
(2) The tenant had shown improvement in recent months, and there was a reasonable prospect that the improvement would continue.
(3) That in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were of the opinion it would be a proper one for the exercise of their overriding discretion under Section 25(1) in favour of the tenant.
The tenant’s appeal was therefore allowed and consent to the operation of the notice to quit was withheld.
Mr JA Hattrell, of Messrs T Weldon Thomson & Co, Tewkesbury, appeared for the landlords, and Mr WS Scammell, of Messrs Burges, Salmon & Co, Bristol, appeared for the tenant.
Sir Leonard Costello, the Chairman of the Tribunal, sitting with Sir Algar Howard and Mr Chamberlain, after stating the formal particulars of the tenancy of Brownleas Farm, Whaddon, Gloucester, and proceedings in the case, pointed out that the landlords’ written application to the Committee did not disclose the grounds of the application, but it had been stated at the hearing before the Committee, and also before the Tribunal, that the landlords’ purpose was to obtain possession of the holding with a view to selling it with vacant possession. There had previously been an application by the landlords to the Committee in October, 1952, for a Certificate of Bad Husbandry, but this application had been refused and the Committee had placed both the landlords and the tenant under supervision orders for bad estate management and bad husbandry respectively. The landlords had subsequently carried out certain repairs, as they had been directed to do, to the satisfaction of the Committee, and the supervision order as affecting the landlords had recently been revoked. The supervision order affecting the tenant was still under review and the question of its revocation or continuance was suspended pending the result of this present appeal. The Committee’s views and findings had been fully set out in their Statement of Case to the Tribunal, from which it appeared that the Committee were of opinion that the tenant had done very little to maintain a reasonable standard of husbandry, and that any shortcomings the landlords previously had were only a minor contributory factor to his difficulties. The tenant had had the additional spur of supervision during the previous twelve months, together with technical advice, and appeared to have benefited very little from it. The Committee were aware, and this was admitted by the landlords, that it was the intention to place the property in the market, but they felt justified in assuming that the next occupier, with a reasonable standard of husbandry, would be able to improve on the low standard which now obtained, and they were therefore satisfied that on grounds of farming efficiency the landlords’ case had been established; furthermore, they did not feel justified in exercising their overriding decision in favour of the tenant.
The Chairman then reviewed the various submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, and took into consideration a decision before the Scottish Land Court — Burnett v Smith, reported in The Estates Gazette Digest of Cases for 1952, at page 5 — the Scottish Land Court being equivalent to an Agricultural Land Tribunal in England, and the relevant Section 26(1)(a) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949, being equivalent to Section 25(1)(a) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, applicable to England and Wales, wherein the Scottish Land Court decided that a landlord’s “purpose” in the sense of the relevant Section must be a concrete proposition in order that the Land Court could be definitely satisfied that it was desirable in the interests of efficient farming. A proposal to “sell a farm with vacant possession” without further specification was not such a concrete proposition; it was a speculation with regard to which there could not be judicial satisfaction within the meaning of the Section.
The Chairman then reviewed the facts and character of the farming of the holdings as regards milk production, in which there had been a considerable increase in the last twelve months, production of pigs and young stock and beef cattle; the lack of repairs or co-operation by the landlords during the tenancy until they were directed by the Committee to do certain things. The Tribunal felt it was not too much to say that the landlords previously had wholly failed in this respect. For agriculture to succeed there must be co-operation, almost amounting to a true partnership, between landlords and tenants. At the same time, the Tribunal thought the tenant should have shown more initiative and enterprise and should have importuned the landlords to fulfil their obligations, or even done the necessary work himself. There was also the fact that the tenant’s wife, who normally helped a good deal on the holding, had had a long and trying illness and had therefore been away from the farm, but was now happily recovered. There had been a good deal of work done recently with regard to the hedges. In respect of the ditches, the tenant had made satisfactory arrangements with the Committee for necessary work of clearing, etc, to be done. The Tribunal supposed that the Committee had not had the advantage of knowing of these recent improvements, and the Tribunal took the view that a very considerable improvement had been effected by the tenant. The tenant was still under supervision, and it might be that the Committee would renew that supervision order, and if the tenant did not go on well the Committee could then take further appropriate action.
The Tribunal thought that it was dominant over the whole case that it would be wrong to hold that the landlords had satisfactorily established that it was in the interests of efficient farming that this farm should be sold by the landlords with vacant possession at the present time. There was no telling into whose hands the farm would fall.
For these reasons the Tribunal decided that the tenant’s appeal ought to be allowed, holding also that in the view of the landlords’ lack of co-operation and the tenant’s handicaps therefrom, as well as from his wife’s illness, and having regard to the substantial improvements the tenant had recently effected, they, the Tribunal, would in any case have exercised their overriding discretion under Section 25(1) of the Act in favour of the tenant.
Accordingly the appeal was allowed and so consent to the operation of the landlords’ notice to quit was withheld.
