1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Petitioner, by this application, seeks review of the order passed by this Court on 16.2.2009 in Writ Petition No.156 of 1989. Petitioner also seeks remand of the matter to the trial Court with direction to decide the matter afresh in view of the changed circumstances by considering the requirements of the heirs, if any.

4. This Civil Application appears to have been filed by tenant on 2.3.2009. In response to the notices issued by this Court, all respondents have entered their appearances. Shri S.P.Shah, Advocate has filed affidavit in reply on behalf of respondents. It has been sworn by one Purushottam Gaikwad on 7.5.2009. Thereafter, on behalf of the petitioner, additional affidavit has been filed, sworn in by Kausalyabai Chavan on 23.7.2010. Some documents have been placed on record along with this additional affidavit of the petitioner. Affidavit on behalf of respondents is also on record (Page 44) affirmed by Prakash Gaikwad on 8.10.2010.

5. Shri Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that Writ Petition No.156 of 1989, initially was filed at Mumbai in 1985. On establishment of this Bench at Aurangabad, said petition was transferred and re-registered as above. According to learned counsel Shri Kulkarni, this petition was pending before this Court for about 23 long years. Hearing of the petition was protracted by the landlords i.e. respondents. On 16.2.2009, this Court has heard the matter and passed an order, review of which is sought by the petitioner.

Shri Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that on that day he himself was not feeling well and therefore, not present before the Court to address the Court and his colleague Shri S.S.Kulkarni was before the Court who was also not prepared and was asking time. This Court, however, considering the pendency of the Writ Petition for substantial time, asked him to address the Court and read the judgment. That is how, according to learned counsel Shri Kulkarni, his colleague read the judgment. He emphatically submitted that no other lawyers appearing for respondents, especially learned advocates appearing for the landlords were present before the Court and did not insist for hearing of the petition nor advanced submissions. Even though it is a Writ Petition, Shri Kulkarni, learned Advocate points out that the State of Maharashtra is not a party and therefore, there was no occasion for learned Assistant Government Pleader to address the Court. This is the ground on which Shri Kulkarni, learned Advocate seeks review of the order dated 16.2.2009.

Another ground raised by Shri Kulkarni is discovery of new material after passing of the order of this court dt. 16.2.2009. Apart from these two grounds, he also invited my attention to ground Nos.(IX) and (X) raised in this civil application, which read as under :-

(IX) It ought to have been considered that during the pendency of the Writ Petition the respondent no.1 expired on 21.10.1992 and his heirs were already brought on record, the respondent no.5 has expired on 08.06.1994 and his heirs were already brought on record, the respondent no.3 has expired on 31.01.1996 and his heirs were already brought on record and hence unless and until the requirement of this 14 heirs is ascertained by remanding the matter to the trial court as laid down by the full bench and the division bench of this Honourable High Court which are referred above no decree for possession can be passed in favour of the heirs, this being a beneficial legislation for the benefit of the tenant and considering the object of Act and unless and until the requirement is proved and the tenant who is in possession cannot be deprived of his possession.

(X) It ought to have been considered that already the necessary material which is required for deciding the effect of subsequent events during the pendency of the proceedings