JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.(Oral) :- This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 16.8.2000 passed by the learned Addl. district judge, Solan, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the order dated 7.6.2000 passed by the learned sub judge 1st Class, Nalagarh dismissing the application of the plaintiff under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. has bee allowed and the application has been partly allowed to the extent that the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) have been restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from House No.503, Shivalik Nagar, Jhar Majra, Tehsil Nalagarh, except in due course of law. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendants and since June, 1998 is in possession of House No.503, Shivalik Nagar, Jhar Majra, Tehsil Nalagarh, which was provided to him by the employer, that is, the defendants. The plaintiff was discharged from service vide order dated 10.11.1999 and was also served with a notice to vacate the aforesaid premises failing which he has been threatened to be forcibly and illegally thrown out of the premises in suit. The plaintiff then instituted a suit against the defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the premises in suit mainly on the ground that the matter concerning his discharge from service is pending adjudication Before the Labour Court and he cannot be evicted till the dispute is finally decided by the said Court. It was along with the suit that the plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from evicting him from the aforesaid premises during he pendency of the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit as also the application for grant of temporary injunction. Apart from the preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non-joinder of parties, cause of action, valuation, and claim of the plaintiff has been denied on the ground that since he has ceased to be the employee of the defendants, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief claimed. The defendants contested the suit as also the application for grant of temporary injunction. Apart from the preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non-joinder of parties, cause of action, valuation, and claim of the plaintiff has been denied on the ground that since he has ceased to be the employee of the defendants, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief claimed. It has been claimed that a worker/employee of the company whose service have been terminated or who has been dismissed as per the rules, is duly bound to vacate the possession of the premises if allotted to him by the employer. 4. The leared Sub Judge after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience is also not in his favour and that even if the injunction as prayed for is withheld, he shall not suffer in any manner, as he has not a vested right to retain the possession of the aforesaid premises after termination of his services by the employer. 5. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was disposed of by the learned Addl. District Judge, Solan, by the impugned judgment as aforesaid. Hence, the revision petition by the defendants. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record. 7. It is not in dispute that the premises in suit were provided to the plaintiff by the defendants as their employee. It is also not in dispute that his services were terminated and the matter is pending before the Labour Court for adjudication. The issue of notice asking the plaintiff to vacate the premises is also not in dispute. The plaintiff claims that he is under threat of unlawful and forcible dispossession if he did not comply with the notice of eviction served upon him. Thus, what is not in dispute is that the plaintiff is in admitted possession of the premises having entered thereon lawfully. 8. It is a settled position in law that even a trespasser is entitled to protect his possession except against a true owner and even a true owner must initiate legal proceedings for eviction of a trespasser in settled possession and cannot throw him out by show of sheer force except in exercise of a lawful right of private defence or self help. Even legal remedy has been provided to a person, who may be dispossessed from immovable property without his consent otherwise than in de course of law under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the object evidently being to discourage the people from taking law into their own hands, however, good their title may be. 9. The learned Addl. District Judge has not granted the temporary injunction in a manner which may disable the defendants from getting the plaintiff evicted from the premises in accordance with the law. In fact what he has ordered is that the plaintiff should not be dispossessed from the premises illegally or forcibly, though the defendants may evict him from the suit premises in accordance with law. Evidently, there is nothing illegal in the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge. On the contrary, in view of the aforesaid settled position in law, the impugned order appears to be perfectly in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional powers. 10. As a result, the revision petition merits dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. 11. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12.11.2001.