JUDGMENT - SHARAD MANOHAR, J.:---The petitioner in this writ petition has got to be non-suited at the very threshold for the very simple reason that he is invoking this Court's jurisdiction for perpetuation of injustice.

2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent/Company till 30-6-1981 as the Chief Executive Officer. While he was in the employment, he has been allotted residential accommodation by the Company without payment of any rent. The fact that his employment is brought to an end lawfully from 30-6-1981 and that he ceased to be in the employment of the Company from that date is not at all in dispute. However, the petitioner refused to vacate the premises allotted to him for residence. The company gave him time till 31st January, 1982 for vacating the premises. He did not vacate the premises, nor did he institute proceeding against the Company for claim against the Company. But when the Company itself filed the suit against him for recovery of compensation in respect of the property in his occupation, he filed a counter claim contending that he was entitled to receive certain amount from the Company. That was as late as in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document