Yes, basically...if I understand you correctly...but I think that's exactly what LVT+UBI does. Every person, including the tenant, is a partial owner of all land and receives part of the sum total of all rent.

Plus, something to consider, a rental agreement usually has rent higher than just the value of the land itself. I rented a place one time that had 800 dollar rent. A mortgage payment on the place would have been 400 dollars. (In most cases the landlord has a mortgage on it and uses part of the rent to pay the mortgage.) You're renting the land and the structure, as well as paying for maintenance (at least, landlords have obligations to make certain repairs in my country). The land value tax isn't taking all of that rent away, just part. The portion of cost that stems from land value is what is taxed, not the portion that stems from actual services (repairs) and products (structures) provided.

I think the proposal that you're suggesting seems somewhat like what Proudhon actually recommended, but I think LVT-UBI is a better approach insofar as land and natural resources ought to belong to everyone in my opinion. Your solution would only benefit the tenant and the landlord, not the neighbors or the community per se. ..and my land value is driven up when my neighbors make improvements on their property and when the municipality puts in schools and the state maintains the roads, etc. The value of the land, largely, results from other people's labor rather than from the efforts of the tenant or landlord exclusively.