1. Set No. 4 SMG (Palace Road), Jammu, which was in the occupation of Shiv Kumar Sharma, Assistant Engineer, the petitioner's father, was allotted to the petitioner for a period of one year or till he remained posted in Jammu District vide Director Estates' Order No. 129 DE of 2004 dated 09.02.2004. 2. His allotment was later cancelled vide Order No. 180-DE of 2006 dated 10.04.2006 on the ground that he had neither paid rent nor sought further extension. He questioned cancellation of his allotment filing a Civil Suit in the Court of Sub-Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Jammu. During the pendency of the Suit, proceedings under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988 were initiated against him. During the course of proceedings under the Act aforementioned, the Director Estates issued Addendum to Order No. 129- DE of 2004 dated 09.02.2004, correcting inadvertent typographic error appearing in Order dated 09.02.2004 by introducing the expression "whichever is earlier" after the expression "Jammu District" appearing in the Order. In other words, with the Addendum, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was ordered to remain in force for a period of one year. 3. During the pendency of the Civil Suit, the petitioner approached the Director Estates seeking revocation of Order No. 180-DE of 2006. His Representation was, however, rejected vide Order No. 289 DE of 2006 dated 09.06.2006, inter alia, on the ground that the Jammu and Kashmir Estates Department (Allotment of Government accommodation) Regulations/2004 would not permit allotment beyond one year. The petitioner does not appear to have questioned Order dated 09.06.2006 in any Forum. 4. On the basis of the Directorate's Order and relying on the Addendum, the Estate Officer found the petitioner in unauthorized occupation and therefore directed his eviction under Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1988. Petitioner's Appeal against the Estate Officer's Order under Section 5 was dismissed by the Second Additional District Judge, Jammu, the Appellate Officer, vide Order dated 22.12.2006. He thereafter approached this Court seeking quashing of Orders passed under the Jammu and Kashmir Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act. 5. I have perused the material placed on records by the parties and considered the submissions made by their learned counsel. 6. He thereafter approached this Court seeking quashing of Orders passed under the Jammu and Kashmir Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act. 5. I have perused the material placed on records by the parties and considered the submissions made by their learned counsel. 6. The documents placed on records by the State- respondents indicate that petitioner has his own house at 220-A, Last Morh Gandhinagar, Jammu which stands leased out to JAKEDA on monthly rent of Rs. 5200/- w.e.f 01.01.1996. II is further indicated that the petitioner possesses his own residential house at 258 Tangawali Gali, Jammu and is, therefore, disentitled to hold the Government Accommodation additionally because quota meant for allotment of Government Accommodation to Non-move Employees like the petitioner had exhausted. 7. Petitioner's learned counsel's plea that petitioner was entitled to retain the Government Accommodation during the course of his posting in Jammu regardless of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Estates Department (Allotment of Government accommodation) Regulations, 2004, which do not permit allotment to Government Employees beyond one year, is without any merit, in that, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the inadvertent error that had appeared in the initial Allotment Order where the expression "whichever is earlier", which would usually appear in such type of orders, was not so incorporated. The Estates Department appears to have intended to issue only one year's allotment in favour of the petitioner in case he remained posted for such period in Jammu. Be that as it may, the error appearing in the Directorates' order having been corrected by the Addendum introducing the words "whichever is earlier" in the Allotment Order, the petitioner has no right to remain in the Government Accommodation after a period of one year when he had not sought any extension thereto. 8. This apart, having two houses in Jammu, the petitioner cannot perpetuate his occupation over the Government Accommodation which is stated needed by the Government to accommodate other needy Government Employees. 9. The petitioner having remained in Government Accommodation, initially with his father when the later was in government employment and thereafter for more than eight years, when the Rules for retention of Government Accommodation do not permit occupation beyond one year, is not entitled to invoke the Extra Ordinary Writ Jurisdiction when there is no equity in his favour. 10. The petitioner having remained in Government Accommodation, initially with his father when the later was in government employment and thereafter for more than eight years, when the Rules for retention of Government Accommodation do not permit occupation beyond one year, is not entitled to invoke the Extra Ordinary Writ Jurisdiction when there is no equity in his favour. 10. For all what has been said above, no interference with the petitioner's eviction from Set No. 4 SMG (Palace Road), Jammu is, therefore, warranted. There is, thus, no merit in the Writ Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed, lifting interim Order dated 10.01.2007.