Question

英语翻译~~！

[1] This is an appeal by the tenant of Knock Farm, Leswalt, Wigtownshire against an Order of the Scottish Land Court dated 24 November 2005 in an application by the landlords for declarator of irritancy of the lease.
[2] The lease was entered into in 1994. Clause 19 provides, inter alia, as follows:
"If during this lease the tenant ... allows one half year's rent to remain unpaid for one month after it has become due ... it will be in the power of the landlord by written intimation addressed to the tenant forthwith to put an end to this lease ... "

[3] The tenant was late in paying the rent due at Whitsunday 2004. On 30 September 2004 the landlords notified him that if the rent was not paid timeously in future, they would irritate the lease. By 28 December 2004 the rent due at Martinmas 2004 remained unpaid. On 29 December 2004 the landlords terminated the lease by notice of irritancy under clause 19 and required the tenant to remove within two months.
[4] The tenant refused to remove. He contended that clause 19 was void ab initio because, by entitling the landlords to terminate the lease with immediate effect, it infringed his right to compensation for high farming under section 44 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 (the 1991 Act), which was conditional on his giving notice of intention to claim not later than one month before the termination of the tenancy (s 44(2)(a)). The landlords pled that there was no reason why the notice of irritancy should not have effect since the tenant had no claim that was being impeded by it.
[5] The Land Court decided that since the irritancy clause did not in the event limit any of the tenant's claims for compensation, it was valid and effective. It repelled the tenant's plea in law on the point and continued the case for consideration of the landlords' crave for declarator. That is the decision appealed against.

Answer 1

（1）这是由承租人提出上诉的,Wigtownshire农场,Leswalt敲门对订单的苏格兰土地法院2005年11月24日在一个应用程序中被地主为声明符的刺激性的契约。
（2）租赁是进入在1994年。第19条规定,承诺书,如下:
“如果在此租约房客……让人半年的租金,后一个月内仍未支付的,因为它已经成为……它将在权力的地主以书面形式进门向房客立即制止该租赁……
（3）
承租人支付租金的迟到的Whitsunday 2004年到期。2004年9月30日的地主通知他若不付房租,他们会及时在未来刺激租赁。2004年12月28日前在2004年Martinmas租金仍然未支付的。在2004年12月29日终止租约的地主的刺激下通知要求承租人第19条和两个月内清除。
（4）承租人拒绝去除。他一口咬定说第19条是无效的,因为自始由受托人有权终止租约和地主的直接影响,它侵犯了他的权利补偿第44的高耕种的农业集团(法案,1991(1991),这取决于他的意图通知要求不迟于一个月前终止租约(44(2)(a)。地主pled,没有理由不应该有刺激性的通知承租人自没有声称正在被它。
（5）土地法院裁定,自从刺激性条款没有发生任何的限制承租人的索赔,它是有效的。它排斥在法律上承租人的抗辩,继续为考量的地主的渴求声明符。这是决定提出上诉。