Feeling aggrieved by order dated 27.2.98 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 19/92 by 8th Additional judge to District Judge. Gwalior confirming the order dated 5.3.92 passed in Case No. 48/89 by 8th Civil judge. Class-II Gwalior wherein an application of plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. CPC was dismissed the plaintiff-petitioner has field this revision praying for allowing the interim relief as sought for. Plaintiff had filed the suit for restraining respondents-defendants from interfering in his possession on Municipal Quarter No. 21-22 which he continues to occupy even after retirement. The respondents contested the suit on the ground that since the premises were occupied in lieu of plaintiff being employee of the Municipal Corporation he has lost further right to occupy the same after his retirement in view of the provisions envisaged under section 63 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. 1956. The learned trial Court rejected an application for temporary injunction against which an appeal was filed which was also dismissed by the same order on the ground that the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act are not applicable to the present case as the accommodation being a Municipal building. The Municipal Corporation is, therefore. cannot be restrained from evicting the plaintiff by due process of law. The Learned Counsel of the petitioner riled upon order dated 27.7.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 575/96 where under it was observed that it was open to the Corporation to initiate the proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam. 1974. However, no such proceeding has been initiated so far by the Corporation to seek the eviction of the Petitioner from the premise, in dispute and for recovery of damages for wrongful occupation. it is to be noticed that the aforesaid petition was filed by the Petitioner directing the respondent to make payment of retrial benefits. i.e. pension gratuity and other allowances. Since it was contended for the petitioner that he is being evicted from the premises without payment of retrial benefits and penal rent is going to be imposed, it seems that in that context. the aforesaid passing reference was made in the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 575/96. i.e. pension gratuity and other allowances. Since it was contended for the petitioner that he is being evicted from the premises without payment of retrial benefits and penal rent is going to be imposed, it seems that in that context. the aforesaid passing reference was made in the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 575/96. However it is submitted for the respondents that the aforesaid observations are not applicable in the present case which has been filed by the petitioner to permanently restrain the respondents for evicting him from the suit premises. The learned counsel of the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Lallu Yeshwant sing v. Rao Jagdish Sing and others reported in AIR 1968 SC 620 where the plaintiff had filed a suit in the Court of Tahsildar, for the possession of some agricultural land under section 326 of Qanoon Mal, Gwalior and it was observed that lessor is not entitled to throw out lessee by force, I am of the opinion that ratio of decision of above referred case is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case because this is a case regarding occupation of Corporation building by its employee who stands retired in the year 1989. Relying upon a decision of this Court in case of Jethanand v. Nagarpalika Mandsaur [ 1980 JLJ 494 ] it has been held in case of Omprakash v. Municipal Council. Barwaha reported in 1982 MP Weekly Notes 113 that premises belonging to Municipality are not covered within the definition "public premises" as defined under section 2(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974. If Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 is found not attracted to the present case then section 63 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 will govern the dispute regarding building of Municipal Corporation occupied by any Municipal Officer and servant. Under the provisions of section 63 of the Municipal Corporation Act, Municipal Officer or servant may occupy the premises subject to such conditions and terms as may be prescribed by the Commissioner and further notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force. such employee has to vacate the same on his ceasing to be in the service of the Corporation, or whenever the Commissioner thinks it necessary and expedient to require him to do so. such employee has to vacate the same on his ceasing to be in the service of the Corporation, or whenever the Commissioner thinks it necessary and expedient to require him to do so. If any person who is bound or required to vacate the premises, fails to do so, the Commissioner may order such person to vacate such premises and may take such measures as will prevent him from remaining on or again entering in the premises. In facts and circumstances and the legal aspects of the case referred hereinabove the petition has no right claiming temporary injunction to the effect that the respondents be prevented from evicting him from the suit premises even after his retirement. However, it has to be made clear that in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No, 575/96, the petitioner is entitled to remain in occupation of the premises till he is evicted by the respondents by taking recourse to any legal proceedings. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is dismissed with the observations made hereinabove.