Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.
1. This case was decided in both the courts below on the admission that the defendant was in possession of the land as a licensee and the plaintiff was a licensor. This was not in accordance with the actual pleadings of the parties. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged a tenancy. The defendant alleged, on the other hand, a licence, but apparently, as we see from the judgement of the court of first instance, it was subsequently admitted that the defendant was in possession of the land as a licensee. Clearly that was the position which the plaintiff appellant took up in the lower appellate court also and it is the position which is taken up in the one ground in the memorandum of appeal filed in this Court. The courts below have decided the case in view of the decision of a Bench of this Court in Dharam Kwnwar v. Fakira Weekly Notes 1901 p. 157. The plea taken before us is that the defendant having denied the plaintiff's title altogether, his licence is liable to be revoked and he should have been ejected. It was in the previous suit between the parties that the defendant denied the plaintiff's title, and in that the question of title was decided in the plaintiff's favour. In the present suit the defendant has admitted the plaintiff's title. The ruling in question is the only ruling to which our attention has been called. It is admittedly against the appellant's contention. It was therein laid down that a licensee in possession does not, like a tenant, by denying the title of the grantor of the licence, forfeit the licence and become liable to immediate ejectment. The two Judges who decided that case remarked as follows: 'No authority, either from the Indian or English reports, has been cited to us in support of the contention that in such a case a licensee is in the same position as a tenant who denies his lessor's title, and we see no reason why we should extend the rule of forfeiture and make it applicable to a licensee. The grantor of the licence has ordinarily power by revocation to put an end to the licence and that may be the reason why the same rule has not been made applicable to a licensee denying the title of the grantor of the licence as to a tenant denying his landlord's title. It is to be noticed also, as regards Indian legislation, that although the Transfer of Property Act provides for forfeiture of his tenancy by a tenant denying his landlord's title, no such provision has been made regarding a licensee in the Chapter of the Easements Act which deals with licensee' It may seem anomalous that a tenant who denies his landlord's title is liable to forfeiture of his lease, whereas a licensee may deny a licensor's title without any such liability to forfeiture, but it is correct that there is no such provision in the Easements Act such as has been made in the Transfer of Property Act, Section 111. In this state of the law we think that it would be proper to accept the ruling in the case mentioned, inasmuch as no good reason has been shown why we should differ from it. We therefore follow that ruling and in that view the appeal must fail. We therefore dismiss it with costs.