The Tale Of The Jealous Jasmine Farmer

[tim armstrong]

G'day all,

This one may be better posted somewhere else, but I thought some of you more experienced farmers may have similar experiences, or advice. My father in law is a retired Thai farmer with several small pockets of land around our district, which he now rents out to other farmers. One of these pockets is about 3 rai of jasmine bushes, planted by the current tenant some seven years ago. The tenant has paid 600 baht per annum, per rai, for the land for the past 7 years when he first started to rent it.

Father in law has decided to increase the rent, I think to 1000baht per rai, from this year, which is very cheap as this is good, fertile country. The tenant knows that my FIL really wants to let his only remaining son, farm the land with his wife. So the tenant got angry about the proposed increase and has destroyed all the jasmine plants by digging them up or chopping them off at ground level. To grow jasmine again would mean starting anew.

Being deep in rural LOS I would guess that there are no written contracts, or rental agreements governing termination of the agreement, or ownership of the plants. FIL is not wealthy, but I think is well respected by his peers in the area, and I don't think has been unfair to the tenant or treated him badly.

Does anyone know if FIL would be entitled to some form of legal compensation? FIL doesn't seem to know what to do next. - As the naive farlang son in law I'm not privy to any behind the scenes face saving stuff that may be happening, but it doesn't seem OK that the tenant should destroy the jasmine even if he did plant it all. Thoughts and suggestions would be much appreciated. Tim

[Beardog]

Tim,

I feel so sorry for your father in law. what a vindictive thing to do over such a small amt.

Even without the increase what a lame way to get back at somebody.

I hope he gets some compensation. Hopefully some of the Jasmin will return.He may have not gotten every bit. I think I would be sending the tenant down the road looking for a new landlord before he can do more damage(easily)

Beardog

[Khonwan]

Why on earth shouldn't the tenant do with HIS jasmine trees that HE planted whatever he wishes? Why should FiL benefit from his tenant's hard labour? How can FiL possibly expect compensation? I sympathise with the poor tenant faced with a 67% rent increase. I (I have nearly 200 rai, much currently rented out) would have done exactly the same as this tenant. FiL would suffer much greater loss of face if he was stupid enough to try to make a police complaint. No way would he get compensation - nor should he. He owns the land...not the crop!

[chownah]

I think that the mistake that might be being made is that your father in law has some kind of ownership rights to the plants that his tenant planted. Unless there was some agreement that this was the case then your father in law has not ownership rights to the plants at all...zip...none...nada....and to think that the farmer is "trying to get back" at your father in law is based on some sort of false idea that your father in law has some rights to the plants and the tenant is destroying something that your father in some way "owns". Why should the farmer put your father in law into business as a competitor?. If your father in law or whoever farms on the land again then they can plant their own plants and wait for them to mature just like the tenant did and get nothing in return (or very little) for a few years.

For me the issue is, why do people think that the tenant should leave an operating jasmine farm for the landlord...one that will just be competition for what I am sure is a not an unlimited market?....and......everything else aside....unless there was some agreement about the ownership of the plants then there is no reason why the tenant even needs an excuse for destroying the plants....they're his (or her) plants after all and they can do whatever they want with them.....at least in my opinion.

Chownah

[lannarebirth]

I agree, that unless contractually agreed to, the FIL has no right to the crop of the tenant, and the tenant us under no obligation to leave him the tress. I would say, that if the tenant is vacating, he is under an obligation to clear the stumps and bruch he's created by chopping down the crop. He should be returning the land in more or less the same condition as it was when he rented it.

[torrenova]

My family bought some land (4 rai) upon which there was some agricultural crop. They paid Bt16000 for the crop which they knew was over market price but which they later sold for Bt12000 after paying for its removal (some plant thing for animal feed I think ???).

If the FIL has any intention of retaining the tenant, which the OP says he did not (wanted his son to farm it), then he could or would have arranged some compensation fee for the tenant's crop. My guess is that the OP would be complaining if his FIL had asked the guy to take his crop off the land and not renewed the lease and the tenant had left it !

[MrSquigle]

Yeah, FIL hikes the rent with not much notice presumably and the real intention to get the tenant off the land.

Really, what did he expect to happen.....

[tim armstrong]

Tim,

I feel so sorry for your father in law. what a vindictive thing to do over such a small amt.

Even without the increase what a lame way to get back at somebody.

I hope he gets some compensation. Hopefully some of the Jasmin will return.He may have not gotten every bit. I think I would be sending the tenant down the road looking for a new landlord before he can do more damage(easily)

Beardog

Thanks guys for the comments. As I said in the post I really don't know all the ins and outs, as farlangs rarely do. But I doubt if there was any agreement about the plants, so FIL probably doesn't have any legal entitlement to them. But he did give a long period of notice about the rent increase, which is a very small amount by local standards considering this is highly productive land, and he really isn't the unscrupulous landlord type anyway. But , I suppose it will get resolved in time, after the whole community has had there input, as is the way around here. Yes beardog, I think it was just a touch vindictive. Tim