respondents. The affidavit was to this effect, namely, within how much time the articles and belongings stated to be lying in this premises would be removed and the keys of the premises handed over to the petitioner. In other words it was directed to state on affidavit as to when vacant and peaceful possession of the premises would be handed over to the petitioner. Yesterday, when the matter was called out, we were taken through an affidavit, which is filed by Mr. R. P. Singh, who is working as the Director in the office of respondent no. 2. He stated on oath that the Directorate of Cotton Development, which is presently in possession of this premises, would require it for some time. Its various difficulties were pointed out in the affidavit as well as during the course of oral arguments. The statement on oath is that the second respondent is in the process of surrendering the premises not later than 31st March, 2017. We were completely dissatisfied with such affidavit and when the second respondent has no right, title or interest in the premises nor can hold on to the same in such manner. The position was that substantial part of the premises was vacant and not in use. Some articles and belongings of the second respondent were lying and in the portion of the premises. That is why we called upon the advocate for the respondents to take instructions and make appropriate statement so that this court is not constrained to render police
