Pigot and Gordon, JJ.
1. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the defendant appellant can be ejected without notice to quit.
2. At first sight we were disposed to hold that in accordance with the principles of English law, which have been followed in various decisions of this Court, the lower Courts were right in holding that the defendant by setting up previous to suit a title to the land adverse to that of the plaintiffs, his landlords, forfeited all his rights as a tenant as against the plaintiffs, and was therefore liable to be treated by them as a trespasser, and as such to be evicted without notice. But in a recent decision under the Bengal Tenancy Act it has been held [Debiruddi v. Abdur Rahim I.L.R. 17 Cal. 196] that under that Act 'in all cases to which it applies, there can no longer be any eviction on the ground of forfeiture incurred by denying the title of the Landlord.' We of course follow this decision, and as it has been found by the Lower Appellate Court that the defendant was an under-ryot of the plaintiffs, we must hold that he cannot be evicted from his holding except after notice to quit, as prescribed in Section 49 (b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
3. This appeal is accordingly decreed, but under the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.