Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

This petition has been admitted by this Court on 4.5.1995.

2. The respondents in this petition are the original defendants. Shri Jafarali passed away during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs, therefore, participated in the suit and thereafter in the Appeal proceedings.

3. The Court notice issued to the original defendants returned unserved since the defendants were not found to be residing at the suit premises. By order of this Court, dated 20.10.2004, notices were issued to the defendants on their new address. It is stated that the new address is the place where the defendants had a vacant plot during the pendency of the suit and the appeal and have subsequently, constructed a house. Since notice could not be served even on this address, the petitioner was granted liberty by order dated 1.12.2004, passed in Civil Application No.10401 of 2004 to serve the respondents/defendants by paper publication. Having so done, the petition was posted for final hearing by order dated 24.8.2009 passed in Civil Application No.375 of 2005.

4. Despite the above, neither had the defendants/respondents caused an appearance through an Advocate, nor have they appeared in person.

5. This Court had considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners on 11.2.2016, and his contentions were recorded as under :-

"1. I have considered the submissions of the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Trial Court dated 07/10/1988 and the judgment of the Appeal Court dated 20/09/1994. I have also considered the nature of construction carried out by the tenant in the tenanted property.

2. The petitioners submit that the open plot which was purchased by the tenants by paying an amount of Rs. 47,000/- to the earlier landlord, continued to be an open plot when the Appeal Court decided RCA 10/1999. It was in the said backdrop that the Appeal Court concluded that if the tenants are evicted, an alternate accommodation is not available to them since the open plot owned by them does not have any construction standing.

3. Mr. Bhavar, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that he would prefer to file a civil application so as to bring the subsequent facts/developments on record that the tenanted rooms are now locked and are in fact vacated by the tenants. He would also bring on record the subsequent events that the tenants have erected a residential construction on their open plot and hence alternate accommodation for the tenants is ready.

4. Mr. Bhavar further submits that the tenanted premises occupied by the petitioners have been directed to be vacated in a different proceeding initiated by the landlord Mr. Bafna, by the Trial Court. The civil appeal filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed by the Appeal Court and the petitioners are now in this Court in CRA No.120/2007, which is pending final hearing.

5. In the light of the above, this matter is adjourned to 10/03/2016 so as to enable the petitioners to take out a civil application for bringing the subsequent events on record. "

6. The petitioners filed Civil Application No. 3319 of 2016 for bringing the subsequent events on record. This Court issued notice and permitted the petitioners to once again serve the defendants through paper publication. Original copy of the paper publication was placed on record. Despite public notice, none appeared for the non-applicants/defendants. This Court, therefore, passed an order on 13.4.2016, thereby, allowing the Civil Application as under :-

"1. The non-applicants are served through paper publication. Original copy of the paper publication in Daily Lokmat, Ahmednagar edition dated 2.4.2016 is placed on record.

2. Despite public notice, none appears for the non-applicants.

3. I have considered the reasons cited by the applicants in the application, praying for bringing the necessary documents on record. The said application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).

4. Shri Bhavar submits that docum