JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the petitions.

2. Rule in each of the petition. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Since, by detailed order dated 11th April 2018, it was made clear that subject to the time constraint and convenience of the Court, the petitions will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Mr. Kothari, the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions makes a statement that all the respondents have been duly served and necessary affidavit of service is also been filed in this matter. Accordingly, it is only appropriate that these petitions be disposed of finally today.

3. The issue involved in all these petitions is one and same and therefore, Writ Petition No. 7751 of 2017 is taken as lead petition.

4. On 11th April 2018, this Court made the following order:

" Heard Mr. Kothari, learned Counsel for the petitioners.

2. By these Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgments and orders dated 5th December, 2016 passed by the learned trial Judge in an application taken out by the second respondent for his impleadment as also the judgments and orders dated 5th January, 2017 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai (Bandra Branch) in Revision Applications. By these orders, the Courts below allowed the application of the second respondent for his impleadment in the suit instituted by the petitioners herein.

3. Mr. Kothari submitted that respondent No.2 came with the case that the property in question originally belonged to Mr. Karippara Sankaran Krishnan, who by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 8th October, 1985 had sold, transfered and conveyed all his rights, title and interest in favour of Mr. Marutirao Namdevrao Tanpure. He submitted that in the order dated 21st March, 2018, his statement that Mr. Karippara Sankaran Krsihnan by letter dated 8th October, 1985 informed the tenants that he has sold and transferred the property in dispute by the said letter, the said letter was not produced on record was made inadvertently.

4. In view of his submissions, Record and Proceeding from the trial Court was called for. After perusing the original record and proceedings, it is evident that letter of attornment dated 8th October, 1985 is produced on record in the trial Court. Prima facie, it appears that Indenture of Conveyance Deed was executed on 8th October, 1985 and was registered on 16th November 2015. By order dated 12th September, 2017, this Court issued notice to the respondents indicating that endavour will be made to dispose of these Petitions finally at the stage of admission. Despite service, respondent No.2 has not entered appearance.

5. In view thereof, issue a fresh notice to the second respondent who is only contesting respondent returnable on 7th June 2018. Parties are put to notice that subject to the time constraint and convenience of the Court, Petitions will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Notice shall further indicate that despite service if respondent No.2 fails to appear, the Court will proceed to decide the petitions on its own merits. Ad-interim order granted earlier to continue. Record and Proceeding shall be transmitted to the trial Court forthwith"

5. In all these petitions, the petitioners are the original plaintiffs before the Small Causes Court in suits which they instituted against various tenants seeking their eviction from the suit premises. In such suits, one Mr. Mohd. Ali Madar Nadaf (respondent No.2) in each of the petitions applied for impleadment on the alleged ground that he has purchased the suit premises from the petitioners. The Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have permitted such impleadment. Therefore, it is against these orders permitting impleadment of Nadaf that these petitions have been instituted.

6. Mr. Kothari, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in a suit instituted by the l