AET. 53] REDEMPTION OF GROUND-RENTS. 1313

said rent shall be redeemable for the sum fixed in said lease or sub-
lease. All rents reserved by leases or sub-leases of land made in this
State between April 5, 1888, and April 5, 1900, for a longer period
than fifteen years shall be redeemable at any time, after the expiration
of ten years from the date of such lease or sub-lease, at the option of
the tenant, after a notice of six months to the landlord, for a sum of
money equal to the capitalization of the rent reserved at a rate not to
exceed six per centum. All rents reserved by leases or sub-leases of
land made in this State after April 5, 1900, for a longer period than
fifteen years shall be redeemable at any time after expiration of five
years from date of such leases or sub-leases, at the option of the tenant,
after a notice of one month to the landlord, for a sum of money equal to
the capitalization of the rent reserved at a rate not exceeding six per
centum.
Application of this section.

A lease for fourteen years with a covenant to renew for a like period, the
second lease to contain the same covenants, comes within the purview of this
section. No covenant can estop the tenant from his right of redemption.
Stewart v. Gorter, 70 Md. 244.

The act of 1888, ch. 395, did not render the act of 1884, ch. 485, inoperative,
but was a. substantial re-enactment of the latter; hence the lessee tinder a
lease made in 1886 is entitled to redeem in 1902. The fact that the property
was improved at the time of the lease is immaterial. Purpose of the two
acts above mentioned. Swan v. Kemp, 97 Md. 686. And see Stewart v.
Gorter, 70 Md. 245.

A lease executed subsequent to the act of 1888. ch. 395, purporting to be in
pursuance of a covenant in a lease executed prior thereto, but which is
inconsistent with such prior lease, is redeemable under this section. Maulsby
v. Page, 105 Md. 25. Cf. Flook v. Hunting, 76 Md. 178.

This section has no application to a lease executed after the passage of
the act of 1888, ch. 395, confirming a defective lease executed prior thereto.
Jones v. Linden Bldg. Assn., 79 Md. 74.

Generally.

A bill in equity stating that the leaseholder is in doubt as to to whom the
notice of intention to redeem should be given, by reason of uncertainty as
to the construction of a will, and asking the court to advise the plaintiff,
etc., will be dismissed. Where the required notice has been given, however,
a bill in the nature of one for specific performance will lie. Effect of .the
act of 1888, ch. 395. Plaenker v. Smith, 95 Md. 389.

Where the lessee is entitled to redeem and tenders the reversioner the
money, the former will not be relieved of rent accruing thereafter and before
a decree directing a conveyance to him, unless he keeps the tender good.
Maulsby v. Page, 105 Md. 24.

The character of the leasehold interest was not changed by the act of
1900, ch. 207, that act operating only as an option extended to the lessee to
buy the free simple estate. Holzman v. Wager. 114 Md. 322.

Lessees (even after they assign their interests), can only be relieved of
their covenant to pay by redeeming the rent under this section. Baltimore
v. Latrobe, 101 Md. 633.

As to the procedure where the reversioner is a non-resident and the tenant
wishes to redeem, see Hollander v. Central Metal, etc., Co., 109 Md. 331.

Cited but not construed in Erb v. Grimes, 94 Md. 106.

As to how the tenant may redeem where the title to the ground-rent is in a
trustee without power of sale, or a life tenant or the holder of a defeasible
estate, see article 16, section 250. See also Kingan Packing Assn. v. Lloyd,
110 Md. 619.

83