Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage. This is defendant's second appeal arising out of O.S. No.803 of 1999. The suit was dismissed on 06.04.2009 by Additional Civil Judge Senior Division/J.S.C.C. Moradabad. Against the said judgment and decree plaintiff respondent filed Civil Appeal No.41 of 2009, which was allowed by A.D.J. Court No.11 Moradabad through judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011, hence this second appeal. Lower appellate court decreed the suit for possession and for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs.300/- per month as against demanded rate of damages of Rs.2000/- per month. The shop in dispute admittedly belongs to Nagar Nigam, Moradabad. The shop was given on lease to the plaintiff respondent Ram Saran by the Nagar Nigam Moradabad for 15 years in 1989. The case of the plaintiff was that defendant appellant was his servant however he started claiming his own right hence plaintiff treated him as licencee and through notice dated 07.05.1999 sent through registered post terminated the licence. The case of the defendant appellant was that time of 15 years for which the shop was given on lease to the plaintiff had expired hence plaintiff had no interest left in the shop in dispute and that defendant was in possession of the shop for 12 years hence he had become entitled to get the shop (land beneath the shop) converted into free-hold. The lower appellate court rightly held that the defendant had no concern with the dispute in between Nagar Nigam, Moradabad and the plaintiff. It was also found that Nagar Nigam, Moradabad had given notice to the plaintiff but no further action had been taken. The plaintiff also filed receipts uptil April, 2002 through which he paid rent of Rs.100/- per month to Nagar Nigam. Plaintiff being tenant of Nagar Nigam could very well either sublet the shop or use the same by itself or give that on licence to anyone. Firstly there was no prohibition against giving the shop on licence and secondly even if there was some prohibition, the action could be taken by the Nagar Nigam against plaintiff. However defendant or any other person who was in possession on behalf of the plaintiff could not take any benefit of expiry of lease in between Nagar Nigam and the plaintiff. Defendant did not claim tenancy. However defendant or any other person who was in possession on behalf of the plaintiff could not take any benefit of expiry of lease in between Nagar Nigam and the plaintiff. Defendant did not claim tenancy. He also did not claim that he forcibly occupied the shop in dispute at any point of time. Even though defendant did not claim to be tenant still he stated that he had deposited rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. As the shop belonged to Nagar Nigam hence the said Act was not applicable. Neither a tenant nor a licencee can deny the title of landlord or licensor. The argument of the defendant appellant that plaintiff himself was licencee hence he could not give the shop on licence to the defendant was rightly rejected by the lower appellate court. There is no such restriction. In any case even if there was such prohibition defendant could not get any right therefrom. Only Nagar Nigam which granted the shop on lease to the plaintiff could seek eviction of plaintiff as well as defendant on the said ground. Accordingly, I do not find any legal error in the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court. As far as damages are concerned, very reasonable amount has been awarded as damages. Nagar Nigam enhanced rent from Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- per month hence damages of only Rs.300/- per month have been awarded. Accordingly, there is no merit in the second appeal hence it is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C.