JUDGMENT : R.K. Mahajan, J. This is a second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the courts below by virtue of which the Defendant-Appellant was held not to be tenant as he denied the title of the Plaintiff-Respondent in a suit filed on the basis of title against the Defendant-Appellant. 2. Originally, the Plaintiff-Respondent has filed a suit that he was owner of the property in dispute on the basis of a registered will executed by Mohd. Akbar in Plaintiffs favour and the Defendant-Appellant was tenant thereof at the rate of Rs. 80 per month. The Plaintiff further alleged that the Defendant Appellant has committed default in payment of rent. 3. It appears that the Defendant-Appellant denied the title of Plaintiff-Respondent and claimed the title in himself on the basis of an oral gift-deed coupled with a memorandum alleged to have been executed by Mohd. Akbar on 29.1.1977. The parties are closely related. To cut short the controversy, it may be mentioned that the Plaintiff ultimately filed a suit after giving a notice u/s 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act, for the vacation of the premises in dispute. Compensation for the use and occupation of the premises in dispute was also claimed. These are the brief facts for determination of controversy. 4. There is another important plea which figured in both the courts below regarding the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. Both the courts below also held that this is not a matter of the nature of small causes and the suit is maintainable in civil court. Both the courts below have also given a finding regarding the registered will in favour of Plaintiff-Respondent. 5. The appeal was admitted by this Court on the, following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the decree passed by the court below is without jurisdiction in view of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, inasmuch as the suit for the eviction of a tenant is only cognizable by the Small Causes Court. (ii) Whether in view of the finding recorded by court below regarding the illegality of the notice u/s 106, T.P. Act, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 7. (ii) Whether in view of the finding recorded by court below regarding the illegality of the notice u/s 106, T.P. Act, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 7. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the case is not cognizable by the civil court and invited the attention of the Court to a decision of this Court in 1988 (2) ARC 164 (Para 27) and the aforesaid paragraph is being quoted herewith as below: 27. Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act provides for cognizance of suit by the Court of Small Causes. It excludes the suits specified in the Second Schedule. A proviso has been added by Amendment to U.P. in Sub-section (3) which is quoted below: Provided that in relation to suits by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of the lease, or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or of compensation for the use and occupation thereof after such determination of lease, the reference in this sub-section to two thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference to five thousand rupees. 8. He has also quoted U.P. Amendment by virtue of which Articles 4 and 8 have been substituted. Article 4 is quoted below: 4. A suit for the possession of immovable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property, but not including a suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of lease, and for the recovery from him of compensation for the use and occupation of that building after such determination of lease. Explanation.--For the purpose of this Article, the expression building means a residential or non-residential roofed structure, and includes any land (including any garden), garages and outhouses, appurtenant to such building, and also Includes any fittings and fixtures affixed to the buildings for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. 9. Explanation.--For the purpose of this Article, the expression building means a residential or non-residential roofed structure, and includes any land (including any garden), garages and outhouses, appurtenant to such building, and also Includes any fittings and fixtures affixed to the buildings for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. 9. According to him, it is a ease of recovery of property and under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been determined as notice was received, He has further submitted that there was no complete denial of title I am afraid to agree with his submission. The language of Section 27 read with Section 4 of the Small Causes Courts Act is clear and impliedly bar the jurisdiction of civil court. Section 9 of the CPC bars the suits which are expressly and impliedly barred by a statute. Since the Plaintiff based his claim on the registered will, which was held by the courts below to be valid, the claim of the Defendant-Appellant regarding the "Hibba" (gift) was negatived. There is a complete denial of title by Defendant-Appellant when he sets in himself the title. 1 would like to quote with the advantage the provision of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act which lays down as under: 111 (g). By forfeiture, that is to say, (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof the lessor may reenter; or (2) in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself; or (3) the lessee is adjudicated as insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may reenter on the happening of such event : and in any of these cases the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease. 10. Since there is a disclaimer of title by the tenant, there is no other course except to hold that the condition of lease has been broken and the lessor is entitled to the premises. 11. Section 114A of the Transfer of Property Act may be quoted also which is as under: 114A. 10. Since there is a disclaimer of title by the tenant, there is no other course except to hold that the condition of lease has been broken and the lessor is entitled to the premises. 11. Section 114A of the Transfer of Property Act may be quoted also which is as under: 114A. Relief against forfeiture in certain other cases.-Where a lease of immovable property has been determined by forfeiture for a breach of an express condition which provides that on breach thereof the lessor may reenter, no suit for ejectment shall lie unless and until the lessor has served on the lessee a notice in writing: (a) specifying the particular breach complained of; and (b) if the breach is capable of remedy, requiring the lessee to remedy the breach; and the lessee fails, within a reasonable time from the date of the service of the notice, to remedy the breach, if it is capable of remedy. Nothing in this section shall apply to an express condition against assigning under letting, parting with the possession, or disposing, of the property leased, or to an express condition relating to forfeiture in case of non-payment of rent. 12. Sri G. N. Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that he gave a notice u/s 111(g) of the T.P. Act and the same was replied on 5.12.1978 vide paper No. 195Ga, by the Appellant. The lower appellate court has given a very clear-cut finding that the notice was duly served. Sri Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondent, has also invited my attention on issue No. 5, which relates to the finding by the trial court. It appears from the finding that the Defendant has given no evidence nor the issue has been proved regarding the jurisdiction. The lower appellate has decided this question in para 13 of its judgment. Regarding notice, it is mentioned that the notice was given on 30.11.1978 vide paper No. 13Ga through the registered post by the Plaintiff which was replied on 5.12.1978 vide paper No. 19Ga by the Defendant. In the reply, the title of Plaintiff-Respondent was denied by the Defendant. So the suit for title was filed. Both the courts below have given a categorical finding that the notices were served. In the reply, the title of Plaintiff-Respondent was denied by the Defendant. So the suit for title was filed. Both the courts below have given a categorical finding that the notices were served. The finding is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and it cannot be by arty stretch of imagination held to be unjust and unreasonable. 13. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the lower appellate court has not given a clear-cut finding regarding the execution of the gift-deed and, therefore, the matter should have been remanded for a finding on this aspect. I do not agree with the submission. The view of the courts below is that it is not disputed that the oral gift has been made by Mohd. Akbar in respect of the property in dispute on 29.1.1977 as a memorandum of gift filed as paper No. 182Ga and the same was not proved. It is also a finding of fact. It is a consistent view of the Apex Court that the finding of fact cannot be disturbed unless some important feature of evidence is missing for arriving at a decision, or inadmissible evidence has been relied upon. This is not a case in the instant appeal. 14. Sri G. N. Verma, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent has submitted that the trial court has only passed a decree for ejectment and damages at the rate of Rs. 80 per month to be worked out from the date of filing suit till the date of possession with interest thereon at the rate of 6%. It is a well settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of the court in a suit depends upon the pleading of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has asserted his title which has been denied by the Defendant outrightly and, therefore, it is a simple and pure suit based on title. 15. In view of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.