The focus of studies in the field of "terre-capital" has been on whether tenants' land improvements are disturbed by landowners or not. Efforts have been devoted to weaken the disturbing effects by landowners. However there remain problems to be clalified. The purpose of this paper is to examine various views on terre-capital, and to indicate the author's view, based on his own understanding of the pure theory of capitalism.<br>In rent theory Marx indicated two aspects of the cause of difficulties with tenants' land improvements. One is the power of landownership, and the other is the unforeseeable nature of additional land investments. His emphasis was on the former, but both aspects existed. Most later arguments took one of these two aspects.<br>Economists faithful to Marx's "research plan" adopted the power of landownership as the cause of difficulties with tenants' land improvements. However the power of landownership has no logical persuasiveness. Uno argued that problems came from the unforseeable nature of additional land investments. Saitoh and Inuzuka argued that tenancy periods were determined by capitalists. However Saitoh placed too much emphasis on the investment of landowners and Inuzuka neglected the unforeseeable market nature. Isomae's view also assumed a perfectly forseeable nature of the market. According to author's view, problems come from the unforseeable nature of the market. Therefore, the problem of terre-capital should be dealt with at a dimension where the business cycle is discussed. Capitalism has the driving force to institutionalize a custom of tenant-right to compensation in order to internalize costs and benefits of tenants' land improvements. Hence problems of terre-capital can be resolved in the pure theory of capitalism.