ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For a direction upon the respondents not to evict the petitioner from quarter no. B- 1094/Sector II which was under occupation and possession of the petitioner and which quarter was taken by the petitioner under the scheme of leave and licence and as per the rule of corporation the petitioner deposited Rs.30,000/- as an advance money and without serving notice the respondents forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from the quarter, therefore possession may be restored in favour of the petitioner and the respondents may be directed to give possession to the petitioner in the aforesaid quarter.” 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the quarter involved in this case was allotted to the petitioner as he was the employee of the respondent Heavy Engineering Corporation. After retirement the petitioner had taken the quarter under the scheme of leave and licence and paid Rs.30,000/- to the respondent. Thereafter while living in the quarter applied for taking “A’’ type quarter on lease pursuant to application invited by respondent corporation for its ex-employees and the petitioner also paid Rs.17,220/- as advance money for allocation of “A’’ type quarter. He submits that quarter number A/82 was allotted to the petitioner but was in damaged condition and therefore the petitioner requested for another quarter but no such allotment was made. Accordingly, the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4230 of 2006 with a prayer from this Court directing the respondent corporation to settle “A’’ type quarter on long term lease. 3. During the pendency of the said writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4230 of 2006 the respondent corporation instituted case for eviction of the petitioner from the quarter involved in this case and the petitioner was served with notice in Case No. P.P. Act/estate/2007-08-035 dated 31.01.2007 and the petitioner vide letter filed on 21.02.2007 before the Estate Officer of the respondent corporation as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition brought to the notice of the authority that one writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4230 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner which was pending and requested the said authority to wait till the outcome of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4230 of 2006. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has been evicted during the pendency of W.P.(C) No.4230 of 2006 without waiting for the outcome of the writ petition. 4. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has been evicted during the pendency of W.P.(C) No.4230 of 2006 without waiting for the outcome of the writ petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities ought not to have dispossessed the petitioner during the pendency of W.P.(C) No. 4230 of 2006 and accordingly, the quarter should be restored to the petitioner. 5. Upon query from the petitioner regarding the outcome of W.P.(C) No. 4230 of 2006, the counsel for the petitioner submits that W.P.(C) No. 4230 of 2006 has been dismissed for default. 6. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and he also submits that the petitioner has unlawfully continued to occupy the quarter and accordingly, he is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Counsel for the respondents also submits that a letter no.372 dated 19.09.2006, as contained in Annexure-2, was issued to the petitioner mentioning that the petitioner is staying in the quarter in unauthorized manner and accordingly, the petitioner was asked to vacate the quarter. The petitioner having not vacated the quarter has been subsequently evicted. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner had continued to occupy the quarter involved in this case even after his retirement and when the petitioner did not evict the quarter even after issuance of notice, the petitioner has been evicted. Merely because another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4230 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner in connection allotment of “A” type quarter the same does not entitle the petitioner to retain the quarter allotted to him during his employment with the respondent Corporation (quarter involved in this case) after his retirement. This Court does not find any merits in this writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. 9. However, so far as the averments regarding deposit by the petitioner for the purposes of allotment of quarter is concerned, the petitioner may approach the respondents for its refund who in turn may consider the claim of refund by the petitioner in accordance with law and if any amount is found refundable, the same should be refunded at the earliest. Petition dismissed.