1. Although from the context it has been held that a "farmer" is not a "tenant" within the meaning of certain sections of the Act, it has also been held that, generally in other sections of the Act, the term "tenants" applies to, and includes, "farmers." In our judgment there is nothing in the context of the section under which the respondent has instituted these proceedings, which necessarily confines the term "tenant" to agricultural tenants. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
2. The damages are not unreasonable.