Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.

Defect No. 1 in Civil Review No. 46 of 2016 is ignored as counsel for the review petitioner submits that he had preferred an intervention application in W.P.C. No. 5228 of 2015, which was however closed on account of withdrawal of the writ petition by the writ petitioner therein vide order dated 22.7.2016. Surviving defect no.2 however is not being ignored. Respondent no.5 be deleted from the array of parties as it is not a party in the connected writ petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. In order to address the grievances raised by the individual petitioners which has a thread of commonality in each of the writ petitions, the relevant prayer and certain facts there in are being discussed separately.

4. Civil Review No. 46 of 2016: –

The review petitioner has sought review of the order dated 22.7.2016 passed in W.P.C. No. 5228 of 2015 where under the writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn at the instance of the writ petitioner, on the grounds that its intervention application being I.A. No 4299 of 2016 was impliedly rejected. This review petitioner, though a party in the eviction proceedings before the Court of Estate Officer, Indian