U.V. Bakre, J.

By this Letters Patent Appeal, the Judgment dated 14/11/2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 282 of 1999 has been challenged.

2. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, in short, are as follows :

Eviction proceedings were initiated against the deceased appellant no.1 and his wife, the appellant no. 2(defendants) by respondents no. 2 to 7 and two others (plaintiffs), by way of Regular Civil Suit No. 267/1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji. The suit house is the house bearing Village Panchayat No. 525 situated at Taleigao. The Plaintiffs contended that the suit house was built up by one Radhabhai Khandeparkar alias Oidem, in the property of the plaintiffs with their permission and she was residing there alone as licensee and died in 1975 without leaving any heirs and upon her death, the suit house remained closed. The plaintiffs further claimed that on or about 28/07/1975, the defendants who were residing in a house bearing Village Panchayat No. 560 in the same Village started illegally occupying the suit house and refused to vacate it when called upon to do so. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the said suit. In their written statement, the defendants claimed that Radhabai was a Mundkar along with her two brothers namely Vithal and Babuso. The defendants denied that the suit house had remained closed after the death of Radhabai. It was alleged that the defendant no.1, resided along with Radhabai and his uncle Babuso, in the suit house till the age of 20 years and after his marriage, he went to stay in a neighbouring house, but did not lose contact with his uncle and after the death of uncle with Radhabai and was frequently visiting the suit house in order to help her in her old age. It was alleged that the defendant no. 1 and his family members were living with Babuso and Radhabai during their last illness.

3. On the basis of the pleadings in the said Civil Suit no. 267/75, issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division and one of the issues was whether the defendants were staying in the suit house as Mundkars? The said issue of Mundkarship was referred to the Mamlatdar under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975(Mundkars Act, 1975, for short).

4. The Mamlatdar of Tiswadi, by Judgment and order dated 31/05/1983, in Case No. MUND/JM/(II)/78, held that the defendants are the mundkars of the suit house. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the said Judgment and Order before the Collector, North Goa at Panaji and Additional Collector, by Judgment and Order dated 03/03/1988, in case No. MUND/AC/APL/87/83, dismissed the appeal by upholding the Judgment and order passed by Mamlatdar. Against the said Orders, the plaintiffs preferred Mundkar Revision Application No. 33 of 1998 before the respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 by Judgment and Order dated 11/10/1991 set aside the Orders passed by the Additional Collector and Mamlatdar and held that the defendants are not mundkars. Against the said judgment and order, the defendants preferred Writ Petition No. 55 of 1992, before this Court, which was disposed of by Judgment and Order dated 23/01/1992. This Court, by the said judgment, set aside the order passed by the respondent no. 1 and sent back the Revision Application to the respondent no. 1 to decide it afresh by keeping in mind that it has to exercise its powers within the scope and ambit of Section 115 of the Code Of Civil Procedure. After remand, the respondent no.1 heard both the parties and by Judgment and Order dated 04/01/1999 again allowed the said Revision Application and answered the issue of mundkarship in the negative. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order of the respondent no.1, the defendants filed Writ Petition no. 282 of 1999, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The defendant no. 1 expired and his legal representatives have been brough