JUDGMENT In this appeal, "at the hearing stage, application is made under Order XLI, rule 27, CPC to establish the position that plaintiffs/appellants are no more in bona fide need of the suit premises and their suit under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is liable to be dismissed. It is true that with that application, certain sale-deeds are filed. One is in favour of Brijesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar and they are described as grand-sons of Prabhulal son of Ganga Ram. Appellant No.1 has also given his name as Prabhulal son of Ganga Ram. The other sale-deed is in favour of Hari Prasad, who is appellant No.2 himself. However, the question if these new aquisitions can be regarded as reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for the purpose of business which is to be set up by the plaintiffs/appellants, is a question which is to be determined on evidence. Indeed, it is also to be determined if the plaintiffs/appellants had become "owners" of the newly acquired premises within the meaning of the term employed in section 12(1) (f) of the said Act. Both are questions of fact and both questions are to be decided on fresh evidence. In this appeal, during its pendency, other applications are also filed. One is under order VI, rule 17 and another under Order VIII, rule 8, CPC. Amendment is prayed in the written statement and indeed in respect of that amendment, additional evidence is filed in the shape of copies of two sale-deeds, aforesaid with application above-referred. One of the applications was filed on 7.9.1992 and another on 12.10.1992. All applications are allowed with the following directions: (a) In so far as prayer for amending the written statement is concerned, that is allowed, but amendment shall be carried out in the Court below because I am remitting the appeal for re- hearing for disposal of the suit and appeal afresh by the Court below to short-curcuit litigation and to ensure expeditious disposal of the matter, remand is made is made not to the trial Court, but to the appellate Court and this is done with consent of the counsel for parties. If so advised, plaintiffs/appellants may amend their plaint to incorporate consequential amendment. If so advised, plaintiffs/appellants may amend their plaint to incorporate consequential amendment. (b) In so far as additional evidence is concerned, that shall be adduced in the Court below in the course of retrial of the suit and when that is done, rebuttal evidence and any other evidence that parties may like to adduce with respect to amended pleadings, on both sides, may be also received. No separate order need be passed on LA. No. III made under order VIII, rule 8, CPC because retrial is ordered on pleadings being amended and additional evidence being directed to be received in that regard. For all reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below are set aside and it is directed that the lower appellate Court shall ' render fresh judgment which shall be regarded as judgment rendered in suit itself in disposing of the appeal. Before that is done, in the course of retrial of the suit, pleadings shall be amended and additional evidence in that regard shall be received. Finally, on the basis of evidence already on record and fresh evidence, all issues shall be decided afresh by the lower appellate Court. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in terms of the remand order aforesaid. Within six months, a fresh order shall be passed in disposing of the appeal afresh. Counsel undertake to appear in the Court below on 11.11.1992 and they shall take further orders thereat, but notice shall also issue to parties from Court directly for their appearance. No costs.