JUDGMENT RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.12.2003 rendered by the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 32-K/XIII/2002. 2. Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that predecessor-in-interest of appellants, namely, Prem Chand (hereinafter referred to as the original plaintiff for convenience sake) instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,95,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for convenience sake). According to the averments made in the plaint, defendant No. 1 Rajput Kalyan Sabha was recorded as owner and Municipal Committee, Kangra was recorded in possession as tenant of land comprising Khata No. 179, Khatauni No. 329, Khasra No. 1235. According to the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, the land was classified as Gair-Mumkin-Motor Adda. The land under bus stand was under lease of Municipal Committee Kangra. It created further permanent lease in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was allowed to raise double storeyed structure. The building was used as store-cum-office-cumsmall workshop for minor repairs. On 29.8.1993, defendants through their agents got the building of the plaintiff demolished and destroyed all the structure. The plaintiff has suffered loss of Rs. 3.00 lakh. 3. Defendant contested the suit. According to them, plaintiff was never authorized by the defendants to construct the structure on the suit land. Rajput Kalyan Sabha Kangra had leased out the Sabha Bhawan building and the land attached thereto, to the Municipal Committee, Kangra through its Administrator for a period of five years. The new Bus Stand was inaugurated on 27.11.1992. The Administrator, Municipal Committee, Kangra vide letter dated 6.3.1993 cancelled the lease in respect of the Sabha and handed over the possession of the suit land in favour of the Sabha with effect from 6.3.1993. The members of the Sabha tried to barricade the premises. However, the residents of Kangra town and private bus operators attacked the members of the Sabha and pelted stones on the members of the Sabha. The suit land and the Sabha Bhawan were owned and possessed by Rajput Kalyan Sabha, Himachal Pradesh since 6.3.1993. The possession of the same was delivered to it by the Municipal Committee, Kangra. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff. Issues were framed by the Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. He dismissed the suit on 28.11.2001. The suit land and the Sabha Bhawan were owned and possessed by Rajput Kalyan Sabha, Himachal Pradesh since 6.3.1993. The possession of the same was delivered to it by the Municipal Committee, Kangra. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff. Issues were framed by the Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. He dismissed the suit on 28.11.2001. The original plaintiff Prem Chand died during the pendency of appeal and his legal heirs were brought on record. Judgment and decree dated 28.11.2001 was challenged by the present appellants before the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. He dismissed the same on 3.12.2003. Hence, the present appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether both the learned Courts below misread and misappreciated the evidence specifically the statement of PW-4 and documents ex. PW-4/A to Ex. PW-4/L, thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? 2. Whether termination of lease deed vide Ex. D-2 is contrary to the provisions of Sections 106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and as both the courts below have not looked this aspect of the matter, the impugned judgments and decrees stand vitiated?” 5. Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate, for the appellant, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that both the courts below have misread the documents Ext. PW-4/A to Ext. PW-4/L. He has also argued that the termination of lease vide Ex.D-2 dated 6.3.1993 was contrary to the provisions of sections 106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 8. Since both the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked, the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 9. It is admitted case of the parties that Rajput Kalyan Sabha was the owner of the suit land. Rajput Kalyan Sabha had leased out the same in favour of Municipal Committee, Kangra only for a period of five years for running/operating bus stand. In the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 Ex.P-1, Rajput Kalyan Sabha has been recorded as owner and Municipal Committee, Kangra is recorded in possession thereof as tenant. 10. Rajput Kalyan Sabha had leased out the same in favour of Municipal Committee, Kangra only for a period of five years for running/operating bus stand. In the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 Ex.P-1, Rajput Kalyan Sabha has been recorded as owner and Municipal Committee, Kangra is recorded in possession thereof as tenant. 10. PW-1 Constable Onkar Singh has proved copy of report No. 22 dated 29.8.1993 Ex.PW-1/A. 11. Original plaintiff Prem Chand has appeared as PW-2. According to him, the suit land was given to him on lease by Municipal Committee, Kangra on a rent of Rs. 20/- per year. The plaintiff had constructed three storeyed shops, value of which was more than Rs. Two lakhs. Members of the Rajput Kalyan Sabha dismantled the building. 12. PW-3 Partap Chand Bhandari has deposed that plaintiff has constructed the building. On 29.8.1993, when he was at New Bus Adda, he came to know that huge mob dismantled the building of the plaintiff situated at old bus stand. 13. PW-4 Ravinder Kumar has proved Ex.PW-4/A to Ex.PW-4/L. These are receipts of rent of building given on lease to the plaintiff by Municipal Committee, Kangra. PW-5 Bharti Punni has deposed that the plan Ex.PW-5/A of the building of plaintiff situated at Bus Adda was prepared by him. 14. DW-1 Tek Chand Rana has deposed that the land of Rajput Kalyan Sabha was leased out in favour of the Municipal Committee, Kangra for five years for operating Bus Adda. The lease was not renewed after five years. The Administrator, Municipal Committee, Kangra vacated and cancelled the lease vide Ex.D-2. When the members of the Sabha tried to dig pits for erecting angle iron, a violent mob came from Kangra side, they started pelting bricks on the members of the Sabha. Few members of the Sabha were injured. 9-10 vehicles of the members of the Sabha were set on fire. Some of the structures were also burnt. 15. DW-2 K.S. Thakur has deposed that Sabha Bhawan and the land attached thereto was leased out in favour of the Municipal Committee, Kangra for operating a Bus Adda. The Municipal Committee, Kangra cancelled the lease on 6.3.1993. A huge mob attacked the members of the Rajput Kalyan Sabha when they tried to fence the land. The termination of the lease Ex.D-2 vide letter dated 6.3.1993 was in conformity with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 16. The Municipal Committee, Kangra cancelled the lease on 6.3.1993. A huge mob attacked the members of the Rajput Kalyan Sabha when they tried to fence the land. The termination of the lease Ex.D-2 vide letter dated 6.3.1993 was in conformity with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 16. It is evident from the contents of Ex.D-2 that Municipal Committee, Kangra terminated the lease and handed over the possession of the suit land and Sabha Bhawan in favour of the Rajput Kalyan Sabha on 6.3.1993. Ex.PW-4/A to Ex.PW-4/L are the receipts issued by the Municipal Committee, Kangra in favour of the plaintiff amounting to Rs. 30/- only as rent of the site. Plaintiff has not led any tangible evidence on record to establish permanent lease or sub-lease created in his favour by the Municipal Committee, Kangra. Plaintiff has also not placed on record any registered instrument to prove permanent lease in his favour. Possession, as noticed hereinabove, was handed over to Rajput Kalyan Sabha by Municipal Committee, Kangra. Plaintiff has filed to prove that the defendants have caused damage to the property of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has also failed to prove that permanent lease was made in his favour and he had constructed building thereon. 17. Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Vareed vs. P.C. George, AIR 1971 Kerala 31 has held that a lease of immovable property being a transfer of right to enjoy such property, the person granting the lease must possess an interest therein. Division Bench has held as under:- “(7) A lease of immovable property being a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, the person granting the lease must possess an interest therein. A lease may be in respect of corporeal hereditaments or in respect of incorporeal hereditaments. The words [Extract in Malyalam Script] in Clause 4 of Ext. P1 make it clear that the testator did not intend to create a life-estate in favour of Iltianam in respect of the properties but he intended to confer on her a restricted right of enjoyment of the usufruct only for her maintenance. The object of the bequest in favour of Ittianam is to provide her maintenance and for this purpose to give her a personal right to appropriate the profits of the properties. It is significant to find a provision in Ext. The object of the bequest in favour of Ittianam is to provide her maintenance and for this purpose to give her a personal right to appropriate the profits of the properties. It is significant to find a provision in Ext. P1 to the effect that if on account of illness Ittianam had to incur any additional expenditure she could encumber the properties to the extent of Rs. 500. This shows that the properties set apart for the maintenance of Ittianam were yielding only an income sufficient for her maintenance. It is no doubt an indication that what was granted was only a right to appropriate the profits of the properties which will not exceed a reasonable maintenance for her. In view of the decisions in Lachhmeshwar vs. Moti Rani, AIR 1939 PC 157 and Lal Mohan vs. Onkar Mall, AIR 1946 Pat 55 it may be possible to hold that the interest in favour of Ittianam under Ext. P1 was an interest restricted in its enjoyment to the owner personally within the meaning of Clause (d) of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act. But this finding will not in any way assist the plaintiff since Section 6 (d) has no application to the case. It has therefore to be examined whether Ext. P1 created an interest in land in favour of Ittianam. We think it unnecessary to decide this question as we are of the view that even assuming that Ittianam was competent to execute Ext, P3, the defendant is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 3(1)(i) to (vii) of Act I of 1964. According to the learned counsel for the defendant though Ittianam got only a life-interest in the plaint properties under Ext. P1, the defendant who claims under Ext. P3 acquired fixity of tenure under Section 4 of the Cochin Verumpattomdars Act (VIII of 1118) and the said right is preserved by the proviso to Clauses (i) to (vii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Act 1 or 1964.” 18. In the instant case, the suit land was leased in favour of the Municipal Committee, Kangra. It is settled law that a person cannot confer any higher rights other than what he himself possesses. In the instant case, the suit land was leased in favour of the Municipal Committee, Kangra. It is settled law that a person cannot confer any higher rights other than what he himself possesses. Even if it is taken hypothetically that sub-lease was created, the same would have come to an end after the termination of the lease between Rajput Kalyan Sabha and Municipal Committee, Kangra. 19. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, including Ex.PW-4/A to Ex.PW-4/L and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 20. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 21. In view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.