Zhilkov worked at a municipal enterprise

Zhilkov worked in the municipal enterprise as the chief agronomist and was given a two-room office apartment, in which he moved in with his wife and minor son. In 2006, the marriage between the spouses Zhilkov was terminated, after which Zhilkov quit his job and left the office building for another permanent place of residence. The municipal enterprise requested the eviction of Zhilkova and her son from the official residential premises without providing other residential premises. Zhilkova objected to her eviction for the following reasons: 1) she and her husband lived in this apartment for 11 years, therefore, she cannot be evicted without providing another living quarters; 2) the marriage between her and Zhilkov is dissolved, their son is a minor, so they are a single mother and also can not be evicted from the premises without providing her with other housing. The plaintiff insisted on the satisfaction of the claims in connection with the fact that the office apartment was provided specifically to Zhilkova’s husband in connection with his labor relationship, Zhilkova herself works as a teacher at school, she was not a member of the labor relations with the organization that provided the premises, hence independent use not acquired. Thus, the residence time in this apartment does not matter. As for the Zhilkov’s son, for the whole last year he actually lived in the city with his grandmother, mother Zhilkova, he was 14 years old, and he is going to study at the College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, therefore he will also continue to live in the city, apart from the mother.
Resolve the dispute.