JUDGMENT M.Srinivasan, C.J.: The writ petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties. 2. On a proceeding initiated by the third respondent herein, the Sub Divisional Collector, Solan, District Solan, H.P., passed an order under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, on 29.5.1993 declaring the petitioner herein to be in unauthorised occupation of the premises since 12.6.1992. The applicant before the said officer had prayed for Rs.3500/- as damages. On the basis of the evidence, the officer assessed the damages to be payable at the rate of Rs.4 per square L for the covered area and it was directed to be payable from 1.7.1992 till the date of vacating the premises. It was also made clear that apart from the said damages, the rent of Rs.500/- per mensum shall be payable by the petitioner herein till vacation of the premises. 3. On appeal by the petitioner, the Commissioner, Shimla Division, has passed an order on 24.4.1995. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: "5. During arguments it came out that the appellant is willing to pay market rent as per the Lower Court order in case proceedings are not pursued under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act by the respondent. To this counsel for the respondent stated that he had no objection and was willing to accept the market rent as directed by the Lower Court. 6. In view of the position brought out above, the appellant is directed to pay to the respondent w. e. f. 1.7.11992 rent Rs.4/- per square feet for the property of the respondent and also enter into a fresh lease/rent agreement with the Solan Tehsil Cooperative (M and S) Union Limited, Ganj Bazar, Solan." 4. The petitioner filed a petition for review under Order 47 rule 1 C.P.C. challenging the correctness of the statement found in the order of the Commissioner to the effect that the petitioner was willing to pay market rent as per the Lower court order in case proceedings were not pursued under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. The review petition was dismissed on 8.5.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. 5. The review petition was dismissed on 8.5.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that there was no agreement either by the party or by counsel before the Commissioner to pay the market rent as per the order of the first officer. It is stated that the statement is based on mistake. We are unable to accept this contention in view of the fact that there is absolutely no allegation of any malice or bias against the Commissioner. There is no reason whatever for the Commissioner to include a false statement in his order. It is pertinent to note that when the petition for review the counsel for the petitioner did not choose to file an affidavit to contest the correctness of the statement found in the order of the Commissioner. It is only the first party, who has filed the petition and stated that the statement contained in the order of the Commissioner was incorrect. The review petition was dismissed by the Commissioner. Even in the present petition, there is nothing to suggest as to why the Commissioner should make a false statement in his order. There is no affidavit of counsel who appeared for the petitioner before the concerned authority. In the circumstances, we have to accept the correctness of the statement found in the order of the Commissioner. It is too well known that all the official acts are presumed to have been done in the proper manner as per the provisions contained in the Evidence Act. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement contained in the order of the Commissioner is erroneous and his order is consequently erroneous. Hence there is no merit whatever in the petition and it is liable to be dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a submission that the petitioner m ay be granted three months time for vacating the premises and the question of payment of rent may be considered and suitable orders may be passed. Learned counsel for the third respondent is unable to accept this suggestion. The question of eviction or grant of time is not really the part of this proceeding. Learned counsel for the third respondent is unable to accept this suggestion. The question of eviction or grant of time is not really the part of this proceeding. Only declaration contained in the order of the first officer is that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant within the provisions of the Act. The order of the First Officer was to direct the petitioner to pay damages at the rate of Rs.4/- per square ft. in addition to rent of Rs.500/- per mensum. That order having been confirmed, we are only concerned with the correctness of the said order. We have found that the order cannot be interfered with. This writ petition fails and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.