3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of first respondent, it is deposed that tenancy was granted to another person on 28.06.2013, whereas this Court passed orders on 30.07.2013. It is further contended that even as per the averments of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in the contempt case, petitioner was evicted much earlier and he filed complaint before the police. This would prima facie show that even before the writ petition was instituted, petitioner was not in possession. In the affidavit filed on behalf of 2nd respondent, it is contended that this Court did not recognize or confirm the possession or exclusive possession of the petitioner qua scheduled premises and there was a dispute regarding the claim of possession. The claim of the petitioner of prior possession and subsequent dispossession is emphatically denied. The third respondent in his affidavit averred that the premises was leased out on a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- vide proceedings dated 28.6.2013 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was taken as non-refundable deposit. Relying on the pleadings of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it is averred that much earlier petitioner filed complaint before the Police Station, Mir Chowk alleging that he was dispossessed by forcibly opening the shutters, would show that much prior to 30.07.2013, he was not in possession of the premises. The tenancy was granted on 28.06.2013, whereas the order was passed by this Court on 30.07.2013.
