JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS application for review of the order dated August 1, 2000 is a sequel to the order passed by their Lordships of the Supreme Coireut on September 29, 2000 in SLP (Civil) No. 14966 of 2000. A few facts as relevant for the decision of the case may be briefly noticed.
(2.) THE building belonging to Budh Khalsa Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. is the bone of contention. It was requisitioned under the provisions of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1953, on April 3, 1973. In pursuance to the order passed by the District Magistrate, Sonepat, respondent No. 4 had given possession of the premises to the Government on May 16, 1973. On September 2, 1987 the owner of the building filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner with the grievance that the meagre rent of Rs. 400/- was very low. It was urged that "the buildings of this type can easily fetch a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/-". It, therefore, prayed that "the officers concerned may kindly be directed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- till the building is vacated." The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner filed a reply. It was stated that the rent is Rs. 434/- per month and that it "cannot be increased by the undersigned and this can only be increased on the basis of assessment by the P.W.D. Authorities..." It appears that the State of Haryana as also the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, whose office was located in the premises, did not even pay the agreed rent. Thus, respondent No. 4 filed a petition "for ejectment of the respondents from the premises under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Rent (Control and Eviction) Act No. 11 of 1973." A copy of this petition is on record as Annexure P4. It was, inter alia, urged that an amount of Rs. 17,360/- was due as rent for the period from March, 1, 1992 till June 30, 1995. It was prayed that the respondents having failed to pay the rent, they were liable to be evicted. This claim was contested by the State of Haryana and Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana. Ultimately, vide order dated October 1, 1997 the Rent Controller found that the State of Haryana and the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner "have not tendered the rent within the statutory period of fifteen days from 6.12.1995." Thus, they were ordered to be evicted vide order dated October 1, 1997. Aggrieved by the order, the State of Haryana and the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide its order dated April 25, 1998. Copies of the two orders are on record as Annexures P6 and P7. Admittedly, the State of Haryana etc. had the remedy of 'revision' available under the Rent Restriction Law. For reasons best known to them, no revision petition was filed. However, after the lapse of more than a year Civil Writ Petition No. 10470 of 1999 was filed by the State of Haryana through the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Sonepat. In this petition the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were sought to be challenged.
(3.) WHILE the writ petition was pending, the District Bar Association, Sonepat, the present applicant, filed a Civil Miscellaneous application, viz. C.M. No. 26149 of 1999 for being impleaded as a co-petitioner. It appears that this application was allowed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated January 13, 2000.;