Iqbal Ahmad, J.
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of a house.
2. It appears that the plaintiffs brought a suit in the Court of Small Causes for rent of the house in dispute against the defendant-respondent, on the allegation that the house in dispute belonged to the plaintiffs, and that the defendant was in occupation of the same as a lessee on behalf of the plaintiffs. This allegation of the plaintiffs was denied by the defendant in the written statement filed in the Court of Small Causes, and the defendant asserted that he was the owner of the house. Thereupon the plaint filed in the Court of Small Causes was returned to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs then filed the suit that has given rise to the present appeal.
3. The plaintiffs' case was that the house in dispute belonged to them and that as the defendant, who was a mere lessee on behalf of the plaintiffs, had denied the plaintiffs' title to the house in dispute in the written statement filed by him in the Court of Small Causes, he was liable to ejectment.
4. The defendant-respondent resisted the suit on the very grounds which he had taken in the written statement filed by him in the Small Cause Court. The trial Court held that though the site of the house belonged to the plaintiffs and the house itself belonged to the defendant, but as the defendant had denied the plaintiffs' title he was liable to ejectment, and accordingly passed a decree for possession of the site in favour of the plaintiffs and allowed the defendant to remove the materials within four months from the date of its decree. The lower appellate Court has reversed the decree of the trial Court and has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. It has pointed out that on the finding of the trial Court, the house in dispute belonged to the defendant, and as the plaintiffs in the Small Cause Court had claimed not only ground rent but rent for the house itself, the defendant was right in denying the allegation of the plaintiffs and in asserting a proprietary right in himself to the house in dispute. It further pointed out that the defendant never claimed any title to the site in himself, and as such the lease, if any, of the site could not be determined by forfeiture. It also held that the suit was barred by Clause (g) of Section 111, Transfer of Property Act, inasmuch as prior to the institution of the suit the plaintiffs had not done any act showing their intention to determine the lease. It has been held by this Court in the case of Prag Narain v. Kadir Bakhsh  35 All. 145 that
a landlord wishing to take advantage of his tenant's denial of title to determine the lease must do some act showing his intention to do so before he can file a suit for ejectment.
5. But it is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that Section 111(g), Transfers of Property Act, can only apply to leasel granted after the passing of the Transfer of Property Act and in support of this contention reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants on the case of Padmanabaya v. Ranga  34 Mad. 161.
6. In my judgment no question of law arises in the present case. On the finding of the trial Court that the house itself did not belong to the plaintiffs-a finding which has not been challenged before me-the defendant was perfectly within his rights to contest the suit of the plaintiffs filed by them in the Small Cause Court for recovery of the house rent on the allegation that they were the owners of the house. The plaintiffs not having any title to the house itself, there can be no question of the denial of their title to the same. The defendant has never specifically denied the title of the plaintiffs to the site of the house and as pointed out in the case of Prag Narain v. Kadir Bakhsh  35 All. 145:
The denial of his landlord's title by a tenant in order to work a forfeiture under Section 111(g), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, must be an unequivocal and unambiguous denial.
7. There being no such denial in the present case by the defendant of the title of the plaintiffs to the site in dispute there has been no forfeiture of the lease.
8. For the reasons given above, in my judgment, the decision of the lower appellate Court is perfectly correct and I dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.