JUDGMENT : Rajan Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner has sought quashing of orders Annexures P1 & P3 dated 10.04.1997 & 06.11.2001 respectively whereby his eviction from the plot in dispute has been ordered and he has also directed to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 24283.70/- as damages being unauthorized occupant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the orders. According to him, there is nothing on record to show that petitioner is in unauthorized possession of the plot in dispute as he took the same on rent and constructed shop thereon by spending huge amount. Besides, petitioner was in continuous possession of the land since very long time. Thus, impugned orders are unsustainable. 2. Plea has been opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. According to him, plot in question was given on rent to Manohar Lal who has sub-let the same to petitioner. As petitioner stopped paying rent, proceedings under Public Premises Act were initiated against him. According to him, petitioner being un-authorized occupant of the shop in question has rightly been evicted by the authorities. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Respondent No. 4 filed an application under section 5 & 7 of the Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of petitioner from the premises in question, he being in illegal occupation thereof. On 10.04.1997, respondent No. 3 directed ejectment of petitioner from the plot in question and also to recover Rs. 24,283.70/- as damages on account of unauthorized occupation of same w.e.f. 01.10.1992 to 31.01.1995. Petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed on 06.11.2001. Aggrieved, instant petition has been filed. I find no infirmity with the orders. It is evident that plot in dispute was leased out by Municipal Council, Malerkotla to Manohar Lal (respondent No. 5 herein). He had sub-let the same in favour of petitioner. Municipal Council, Malerkotla initiated proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from the plot in question on the ground of unauthorized occupation and non payment of rent from 01.10.1992 to 31.01.1995. Authorities below after hearing the parties and perusing evidence on record directed ejectment of petitioner from the plot in question being unauthorized occupant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any infirmity with the orders passed. Authorities below after hearing the parties and perusing evidence on record directed ejectment of petitioner from the plot in question being unauthorized occupant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any infirmity with the orders passed. In the facts and circumstances of the case and judgment dated 13.03.2002 of this court rendered in C.W.P. No. 4511 of 2001 titled as Hari Mitter & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. there is no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Dismissed.