Vijender Jain ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitionsnos. 3145/85, 25 and 893/86 and 182/87. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was employed as Electrician by the erst-whiledelhi Electric Supply and Traction Company Limited in the year 1942. Theservice of the petitioner was taken over by Delhi Central Electric Powerauthority in the year 1948. On the formation of Delhi State Electricityboard with the introduction of Electricity Supply Act. 1948 the service ofthe petitioner was transferred to the Board on the same terms and conditions. The petitioner states that with the introduction of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 on 1/04/1958 the service of the petitioner was transferredto Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (Respondent No. 2 herein) a statutorybody of the Delhi Municipal Corporation. Pursuant to a policy of thegovernment of India in the year 1934 which according to the petitionerprovided accommodation for low income group, the erst-while Delhi Stateelectricity Board raised loan from Delhi Administration in the year 1957. The case of the petitioner is that these houses were built for the benefit ofpetitioner and the persons similarly situated. It is alleged that according tothe policy the petitioner was to be sold one of the houses as per the policyand in the alternative the plea of the petitioner is that he was inducted as atenant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme underwhich the accommodation was constructed. The petitioner retired fromservice on 30/04/1980. After his retirement respondent No. 2 Delhielectric Supply Undertaking initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner in respect of premises in question and the petitioner filed objections tothe show cause notice but ex parte eviction order was passed by the Estateofficer. The petitioner filed an appeal before Additional District Judge undersection 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971 (for short the Act ). The learned Additional District Judge dismissed theappeal vide order dated 2/12/1985. The petitioner hag challengedin this writ petition the dismissal of his appeal and has prayed for appropriate writ or write, order or directions quashing the order of the learnedaddl. District Judge, Delhi dated 2/12/1985 and that this Courtshould further hold that the premises in which the petitioner is living is notthe public premises and, therefore, Public Premises Act is not applicable. Therefore, the petitioner has played for staying the dispossession from thepremises in question. District Judge, Delhi dated 2/12/1985 and that this Courtshould further hold that the premises in which the petitioner is living is notthe public premises and, therefore, Public Premises Act is not applicable. Therefore, the petitioner has played for staying the dispossession from thepremises in question. ( 3 ) WHEN this writ petition was filed on 20/12/1985, thiscourt stayed the dispossession of the petitioner from the premises in question. In the meanwhile, another petition was filed by some other employees ofdelhi Electric Supply Undertaking in this Court on similar grounds andthis Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated 14/03/1991. Against the said dismissal the employees preferred an appeal in the Supremecourt of India by way of Special Leave Petition Nos. 9011. 9012, 9013. 90149015 and 9016 of 199l Jagdish Prasad and Ors. v. M. C. D. through Commissioner and Other. The following observations were made by the Supremecourt s- "we are thus clearly of the view that the petitioners have no legalright to claim any right of ownership and are not entitled to seekany mandamus from the Court in this regard. The High Court hasgiven cogent reasons in dismissing the writ petitions and we find noground to take a different view. In the result, we find no force inthese Special Leave Petitions and the same are dismissed with noorder as to costs. " ( 4 ) IN view of the above finding of the Supreme Court, we are notrequired to give any detailed findings. ( 5 ) WE may also mention that the arguments advanced by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner appearing before us that the provisions of Publicpremises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 are not applicableto the premises in question are not tenable. Once it is admitted by the petitioner that he was allotted this accommodation being an employee of Delhielectric Supply Undertaking, the occupation of the petitioner in the premisesin question is limited to his tenure in service. ( 6 ) IN some of the petitions which raise similar questions this Courthas stayed the proceedings initiated by DESU under the provisions of Publicpremises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, we vacate thatorder and the proceedings under the said Act may be completed in accordance with law. ( 7 ) IN the result, the prayers of the petitioner are declined. The writpetition te dismissed. The interim order made earlier is vacated. ( 7 ) IN the result, the prayers of the petitioner are declined. The writpetition te dismissed. The interim order made earlier is vacated. Keepingin view the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.