This page has been validated.
Appendix.
59
no good reason why, owing to the mere accident of the nature of the ownership, the compensation received by the tenant should be different, for the improvement effected is the same in both cases; nor is there any reason why the two different classes of landlord should not pay the same sum; but inasmuch as by Section 42 the Legislature restricted the period of repayment to the tenant for life, it was compelled, in order to place him in as good a position as the absolute owner, to allow him to compensate the tenant on the second principle.
But even now there seems this flaw in the Act: a tenant for life may still have to pay sometimes in effect on the same principle as the absolute owner. Suppose, at the time of consent given, landlord absolute owner, the tenant would then be entitled to compensation on the first principle; but the landlord, from whom he obtains compensation, is a tenant for life, and, therefore, the tenant for life pays on the first principle, and obtains a charge limited in duration. To illustrate this further: sum laid out by the tenant £200, addition made thereby to yearly letting value £10; at the time of consent given, landlord absolute owner. Tenancy determined, after three years of improvement exhausted, by landlord who is a tenant for