Order Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 05.11.2012 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2518 of 2010. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. On 13.09.1999, the appellant was alloted Qr. No. CD-451/2 for 11 months on Lease and License basis. It was renewed once for the period between 01.08.2000 and 30.06.2001 and thereafter, the appellant made an application seeking long-term renewal on one time payment of Rs.1,50,000/-vide application dated 29.11.2000 however, the long-term lease was not granted and the appellant continued in occupation of the said quarter. The appellant initially approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 6439 of 2003 against the notice issued on 09.12.2003, which was dismissed and thereafter, he preferred a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.580 of 2005, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, a proceeding was initiated against the appellant under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. By order dated 22.01.2008 passed in Case No. P.P. Act/ 2004-05 under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, the appellant was declared in unauthorized possession of the quarter and thus, an order of eviction was passed. The appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 05 of 2008 filed by the appellant was dismissed by order dated 12.06.2009. The appellant thereafter, preferred a Civil Review being Civil Review No. 04 of 2009, which was also dismissed by order dated 28.04.2010. The appellant, thereafter, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2518 of 2010, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 05.11.2012. 4. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in terms of the Circular No. 17/2000 and 13/2002, the appellant was entitled for renewal of the agreement and grant of long-term lease however, arbitrarily the lease was not granted in favour of the appellant. The appellant thereafter, continued in possession of the quarter and continued to pay rent at an enhanced rate, which the respondent-H.E.C. continued to accept and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant continued in unauthorized occupation of the quarter. 5. Per contra, Mr. The appellant thereafter, continued in possession of the quarter and continued to pay rent at an enhanced rate, which the respondent-H.E.C. continued to accept and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant continued in unauthorized occupation of the quarter. 5. Per contra, Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has submitted that the agreement was only for 11 months and on the expiry of the agreement, the renewal was to be done by the mutual consent of the parties however, since the lease was not renewed, the appellant continued in unauthorized occupation of the quarter alloted to him. He relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 855 and contends that even if the person, who was inducted on lease continues to pay the rent after expiry of the terms of agreement, he would become an unauthorized occupant. 6. It is admitted that the agreement was for 11 months on Lease and License basis and it was renewed once, treating the appellant as an outside agency. The application dated 29.11.2000 of the appellant itself would indicate that he had made a request to consider his case sympathetically for extending the lease beyond 30.06.2001. Three Courts have concurrently held that after 30.06.2001, the appellant was in unauthorized occupation of the premises. The earlier effort of the appellant before this Court has resulted in dismissal of the petition filed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has held as under: “The authorities i.e. learned Estate Officer as well as learned Additional Judicial Commissioner in their orders have properly considered the relevant aspects. The appellate authority has gone in a great detail and has discussed all the points/grounds taken by the petitioner. He has found that there was no illegality in the order passed by learned Estate Officer. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the orders, I find no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned orders. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” 7. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that since the appellant was not the employee of the Heavy Engineering Corporation, he was given the H.E.C. quarter on Lease and License basis for certain period. After the expiry of the period when the appellant did not vacate the premises, a proceeding was initiated against him under the provision of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. After the expiry of the period when the appellant did not vacate the premises, a proceeding was initiated against him under the provision of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The learned Single Judge did not find any illegality in the order passed by the Estate officer or order passed in appeal and the Civil Review case. It appears that the appellant remained in occupation of the quarter initially alloted to him on Lease and License basis, due to litigation, which ensued after he filed petitions in different Courts. After the expiry of the lease term, the appellant became an unauthorized occupant and merely because he continued to pay enhanced rent, it would not render the occupation, legal. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. LPA dismissed.