R.K. Varma, J. -- 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff-landlord against the judgment and order of remand dated 11.10.1984 passed in Civil Appeal No. 29-A/83 by the IInd Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Ratlam, whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court has set aside the judgment dated 6.8.1983 and decree dated 9.8.1983 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Ratlam in C.S. No. 41-A/81, and remanded the case to the trial Court with a direction to bring all the legal representatives of the original tenant-deceased Gopalsingh on record and thereafter dispose of the suit in accordance with law.

2. The facts giving rise to his appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:

"The appellant-plaintiff has brought the instant suit for eviction and arrears of rent on the grounds that he bona fide required the suit-accommodation for his residence, that the respondent-tenant-defendant did not pay arrears of rent for four months from 1.10.80 to 31.1.81 inspite of service of notice on him, that the suit-accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs and also for purpose of reconstruction and that the repairs and reconstruction cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated. A further ground for eviction alleged in the plaint has been that the defendant-tenant has acquired vacant possession of the accommodation suitable for his residence. In short, the plaintiff pleaded the grounds for eviction of the tenant as per clauses (a), (e), (g), (h) and (i) of section 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The defendant-tenant resisted the suit and in his written-statement filed on 6.1.1981, he denied the allegations made in the plaint. The defendant, however, amended his written-statement on 2.4.1983 by adding the allegation at the end of para 1 of the written-statement that the deceased Gopalsingh, father of the defendant Ramsingh was the tenant in the suit-accommodation since 18.8.63 and that after his death, all the legal representatives of deceased Gopalsingh are tenants in the suit accommodation.

3. After trial, the learned trial Court found that the plaintiff had established that the defendant had acquired a quarter and a residential house suitable for his residence and as such, he is liable to be evicted on the ground of section 12(1)(i) of the Act.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the learned trial Court, the defendant-tenant filed an appeal before the IInd Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Ratlam. The learned appellate Court has decided the appeal only on the point of joinder of necessary parties to the suit without deciding the appeal on other points relating to merits.

5. The learned Lower Appellate Court has held that the original landlord Devilal had let the suit accommodation to the tenant deceased Gopalsingh about 22-23 years ago. Gopalsingh died about 15 years ago and since his death the legal heirs of the deceased -Gopalsingh viz., the defendant Ramsingh, his mother Surajkunwar, his brothers Devisingh, Gulabsingh and Premsingh are residing as tenants in the suit accommodation.

6. The plaintiff Kanhaiyalal purchased the suit-house from the original owner landlord Devilal and the defendant Ramsingh has been paying rent of the suit accommodation to Kanhaiyalal. The learned Lower Appellate Court has further found that even if some of the legal heirs of the deceased Gopalsingh may not be occupying the suit accommodation they would be treated as tenants in possession, if other legal heirs of deceased Gopalsingh are occupying the same. The learned Lower Appellate Court has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal and others v. Parashram and others [1976 JLJ 655(SC)] for the proposition that heritability is an incident of the tenancy. Another in Tarachand v. Ram Prasad [1990(1) RCJ 673] has also been cited.

7. The learned Lower Appellate Court has, therefor