Mitter, J.

1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recoverpossession of a piece of land which it is alleged was held by the defendants astheir tenants.

2. The plaintiffs alleged that they called upon thedefendants to come to a settlement with them in respect of the said land, andthey say, as the defendants have refused to do so, they are entitled to evictthem and get khas possession. They also alleged that they served the defendantswith a notice to quit.

3. The Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs suit uponthe ground that no notice to quit is proved to have been served upon thedefendants.

4. It is contended before us that the Courts below were notright in dismissing the suit upon that ground, because the defendants in thiscase alleged that they were not the tenants of the plaintiffs; and if it werefound that they were not, no notice to quit would have been necessary.

5. We are of opinion that this contention is not valid. Ifit should be found that the defendants were not the tenants of the plaintiffs,the plaintiffs suit would be liable to be dismissed upon the ground that theyhave not established any cause of action. Their cause of action was that thedefendants were their tenants; that they called upon the defendants to settlefor the lands; that they refused to do so; that they then served upon them anotice to quit; and that, as they have not quitted the land, the plaintiffs areentitled to evict them and get khas possession, so that, if it were once foundthat the defendants were not the plaintiffs tenants, their plaint as framedwould disclose no cause of action against the defendants for possession.

6. It was contended before us that the plaintiffs might havebeen able to prove some other cause-of action at the trial. But the answer tothat is, that they would not be allowed to prove a cause of action differentfrom the one set up in the plaint.

7. In point of fact, no other cause of action was alleged orproved upon the evidence that was taken. We asked the learned pleader, whoargued the case before us, to point out any evidence showing that theplaintiffs were in possession otherwise than through the defendants as theirtenants, but he admitted that there was no such evidence. Consequently, we maytake it that the plaintiffs attempted to prove the cause of action, which theyset up; and that they could not do unless it were proved that notice had beenserved upon the defendants.

8. It was further contended that, although no notice wasserved upon the defendants, the plaintiffs were still entitled to a decree forejectment, inasmuch as the defendants had, by their conduct in denying in theirwritten statement the plaintiffs title, forfeited their tenant right.

9. We are of opinion that this contention also is not valid.The plaintiffs cause of action must be based on something that accruedantecedent to the suit. The fact that the defendants in their written statementdenied their tenancy under the plaintiffs would not give the plaintiffs acause, of action upon which to found their suit.

10. The learned vakil for the appellant referred us to threecases in support of his contention. The first is Suttyabhama Dassee v. KrishnaChunder Chaiterjee I.L.R. Cal. 55. The cause of action in that case was, thatthe defendant, the tenant, had denied the landlords title before theinstitution of the suit, and the Munsif, upon the evidence adduced in thatcase, found that to be the case, and this Court, in confirming the Munsifsdecision, held that this denial of the landlords title gave the landlord a rightto evict the tenant. It is true that the Judges who decided that case alsorefer to the further denial of the plaintiffs, the landlords, title containedin the written statement, but that was done merely with the view of showingthat the conduct of the defendant had been throughout such that the Court couldnot take an equitable view of the case and interfere to prevent the forfeiturewhich he had incurred by denying his landlords title from taking-effect. Thenext case is Ishan Chunder Chattopadhya v. Shama Churn Dutt I.L.R. Cal. 41.There the denial was by one of four defendants, and the learned Chief Justice,in delivering judgment, held that the denial by that one defendant was made onbehalf of all, and that it therefore gave the plaintiff, the landlord, a rightto bring a suit, upon that denial, against them all. The last is Baba v.Vishvanath Joshi I.L.R. 8 Bom. 228 but that case does not touch the paint nowbefore us, which is, whether the denial of a landlords title by way of defenceto an action of ejectment works a forfeiture. That case was decided upon theground that, as the defendant had set up a permanent title, and had failed toprove it, the landlord was entitled to recover possession. No. question of thedefendant (the tenant) having forfeited his right in the tenure by denying thelandlords title in his written statement was raised or decided in that case.

11. We are therefore, of opinion that these cases do notsupport the contention of the learned vakil.

12. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

.

Prannath Shaha and Ors. vs. Madhu Kulu and Ors. (08.04.1886- CALHC)