1. The Lower Appellate Court having upon the evidence found that the title to the land in dispute was vested in the plaintiff, the decree in his favour must be upheld unless, as contended for the defendants, the plaintiff was bound to make out that he had before the suit made a demand for possession. It is true that under Exhibit I, the last lease granted by the predecessor in title of the plaintiff, the tenancy did not absolutely determine on the expiry of the term of three years fixed as according to the further provisions contained in the instrument the tenant's possession amounted to that of a tenant at will. It would seem that according to the English Law (seeWoodfall's Landlord and Tenant, 12th Edn., p. 240, foot-note K.) a plaintiff suing to eject a person who held under a tenancy-at-will has to show that before the issue of the writ there had been a demand for possession or something equivalent thereto, though according to Bam Lal Patak v. Deoia Nath Patak and the cases therein followed, it would seem that in this country the suit itself would be deemed a sufficient ' demand. Be this as it may, in the present case the lessor died a few days after the expiry of the term of 3 years and by his death the tenancy at will which came into existence on the expiry of that term became determined. See James v. Dean where Eldon L.C. laid down that in the cases of a tenancy-at-will the general doctrine is that the death of either party determines the will. (8, Revised Reports; p. 185). Demand for possession before suit was, therefore, unnecessary here in any view.
2. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.