( 1. ) REFUSAL of temporary injunction finally by the trial Court is the subject - matter of challenge in this petition. The admitted position, however, is that the petitioner is in possession of the premises and his counsel contends foreefully that the premises not being "public premises" within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (for short, the act) he cannot be evicted therefrom pursuant to the notice served and any decision taken under the Act by any authority. In the suit, validity of notice as well as the decision rendered by the "competent Authority" was challenged.

( 2. ) SHRI Apte, learned counsel for the respondent (No. 3), has vehemently opposed petitioners prayer for temporary injunction, reiterated in this Court, which was refused by the trial Court. In the fore-front of his argument, Shri Apte has pressed a very forceful weapon, relying on the provisions of Section 10 of the act. It is contemplated thereunder that every order made by a competent authority or appellate authority under the Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding and n