JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral):- The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of Letters Patent is directed against an order passed by learned Single Bench of this Court on 30.08.2013 and the order in review passed on 24.03.2014 whereby the writ petition challenging the order of eviction passed under Section 14-A of The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953(for short ‘the Act’) remained unsuccessful. 2. The appellant is a tenant over land measuring 46 Kanals 6 Marlas. The landlord sought eviction of the petitioner for non-payment of rent for the period Kharif 1999 to Kharif 2001. The stand of the appellant is that he has paid the rent but the landlord has not issued receipts as there is no custom of issuing of the receipts in the year in question. All the authorities passed order of eviction, inter alia, taking into consideration suit for recovery of arrears of rent from Rabi 1975 Rabi 1977 was decreed on 17.08.1978. It has also been noticed that suit for recovery of arrears of rent from Kharif 2001 to Kharif 2003 has been decreed by the Assistant Collector, which proceedings have attained finality. The suit for recovery of arrears of rent from Sawani 2004 to Sawani 2006 has also been decreed and the arrears of rent received. Such factors have been taken into consideration by the authorities under the Act and the learned Single Bench while dismissing the writ petition. The authorities have also taken into consideration the fact that the application for purchase of land by the appellant was decided on 09.07.1999 holding that there is no surplus area with the landlord. Such order has attained finality. 3. A perusal of the orders would show that the landlord has invoked the jurisdiction of the authorities to claim the arrears of rent since Rabi 1975. Even for the subsequent period the rent was not paid and which proceedings have attained finality. The stand of the appellant that he has firstly been paying rent without receipts is thus cannot be believed when the landlord has invoked multiple proceedings for recovery of arrears of rent. The appellant was claiming purchase of land but such application has also remained unsuccessful as the land was not declared surplus. The stand of the appellant that he has firstly been paying rent without receipts is thus cannot be believed when the landlord has invoked multiple proceedings for recovery of arrears of rent. The appellant was claiming purchase of land but such application has also remained unsuccessful as the land was not declared surplus. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration all the factors including Annexure P-7 i.e. recovery of rent for the subsequent period in terms of the order of the Court dated 11.12.2007. Since the appellant has been found to be in arrears of rent for the period prior to the period in question and also the subsequent period, the stand that he has been paying the rent without receipt has rightly not been believed. 4. The appellant has sought review of the order on the ground that the document (Annexure P-7) was not taken into consideration but factually it was noticed by the learned Single Bench that such plea has been wrongly raised. Therefore, the review application was dismissed. 5. We do not find any error in the orders passed which may warrant interference in the present intra-Court appeal. 6. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------