JUDGMENT : K.S. Hegde, J. The question of law arising for decision in this appeal by certificate is covered by the decision of this Court in Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. and anr. v. State of Punjab and anr., (1967) 3 S.C.R. 399 . In view of the decision this appeal has to be allowed and the impugned order quashed. 2. The appellants took on lease from the Gram Panchayat, Khanpur Kohlian, Tehsil Thanesar, District Karnal, a portion of the village common land (Shamlat Deh) for a period of five years from February 1956 to February 1961 at Rs. 2 per bigha. The leased area comprised about 7.50 bighas out of which about 625 bighas are under cultivation and the remaining area is Ghair Mumkin. On March 21, 1961, the Gram Panchayat moved the Collector, Karnal under Section 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the eviction of the appellants on the ground that after the expiry of the lease, they are in possession of the demised property unauthorisedly. The Collector accepted that application and ordered the eviction of the appellants under Section 5 of the Act. The appellants unsuccessfully appealed to the Commissioner, Ambala Division. Thereafter they moved the High Court of Punjab under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The principle question raised in that application was as to the vires of the Act. The contention of the appellants that Section 5 of the Act is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution was rejected by the learned single Judge following a full bench decision of that High Court in Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. and anr. v. The State of Punjab and anr., 1963 P.L.R. 344. The other contentions raised in the writ petition are not relevant for our present purpose. The decision of the learned single Judge was affirmed by the Letters Patent bench of that Court. The full bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. and anr. v. The State of Punjab and anr. (supra) was overruled by this Court in Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. and anr. v. State of Punjab and anr. (supra). Hence the appellants' contention that their eviction was illegal has to be accepted. 3. Mr. The full bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. and anr. v. The State of Punjab and anr. (supra) was overruled by this Court in Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. and anr. v. State of Punjab and anr. (supra). Hence the appellants' contention that their eviction was illegal has to be accepted. 3. Mr. Keswani, learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat contended that as the High Court has come to the conclusion that the appellants are in unauthorised occupation of the suit properties, they are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This contention has no merit. Under our jurisprudence even an unauthorised occupant can be evicted only in the manner authorised by law. This is the essence of the rule of law. 4. Mr. Keswani next contended that the appellants had not put forward correct facts before the High Court and thus we should not give them any relief in these proceedings. It may be noted that the High Court had not solely refused to exercise its jurisdiction on the ground that the appellants had come forward with false facts but the application was primarily dismissed in view of the full bench decision referred to earlier though in the course of his judgment the learned single Judge did remark : "It has been well settled that mere technical flaw in an order does not lead to any injustice. I, therefore, cannot interfere with the impugned orders in the exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and in view of the fact that at least there have been efforts on the part of the petitioners not to state the truth in this Court, this petition stands dismissed." The meaning of these observations in not clear. These observations came to be made on the ground that the appellants had wrongly contended that in accordance with the terms of the lease, they were entitled to have the lease extended for a further period of five years. That contention was a legal contention. The lease deed had been produced before the Court. It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellants are not entitled to any relief in these proceedings as they had put forward a false case before the Court. That contention was a legal contention. The lease deed had been produced before the Court. It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellants are not entitled to any relief in these proceedings as they had put forward a false case before the Court. An erroneous legal contention cannot be said to be a misrepresentation of facts. 5. For the reasons mentioned above we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Collector directing eviction of the appellants from the leased property. This order shall not preclude the Gram Panchayat from taking any steps according to law for evicting the appellants from the suit property. The appellants are entitled to their costs both in this Court as well as in the High Court from the 4th respondent viz. Gram Panchayat, Khanpur Kohlian, Tehsil Tanesar. Appeal allowed.