JUDGMENT : S.K. Seth, J. 1. This is tenant's appeal against the concurrent judgment and decree of eviction passed under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961( hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) by the Courts below. 2. The appeal was admitted for final hearing and the following substantial question of law was formulated: Have the courts below erred in recognizing the need for non-residential purpose of the grand son of respondent landlord in opposition to provisions of Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961? 3. Plaintiff/respondent herein sought eviction of the appellant/tenant from the non-residential suit accommodation situated in Indore. She set up the bonafide need of her grand-son for starting his own business from the suit accommodation as one of the grounds for eviction. Based upon pleadings and evidence adduced by parties, learned trial Court decreed the suit and ordered eviction of the appellant under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act. Decree was affirmed in first appeal. Hence this appeal by the tenant. 4. Shri Mahendra Barania, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant attacked the impugned judgment and decree and contended that no decree under Section 12(1)(f) could be passed on the ground of bona-fide need of the grand son. According to him, so far as eviction under Section 12(1)(f) is concerned, legislature has deliberately left out other members of family, and eviction of a tenant from a nonresidential accommodation is possible only on the ground of bonafide need of landlord and/or his major sons and unmarried daughters for starting or continuing business. He placed reliance on the Division Bench decision reported in 1974 MPLJ 293 Nandkishore v. Sarjudevi wherein this Court refused to recognize the need of a landlord's spouse for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of Act. Thus, according to him in the instant case, Courts below erred in law in passing the eviction deccree against the appellant on the ground of bona-fide need of the grand-son of the plaintiff/landlady. 5. Thus, according to him in the instant case, Courts below erred in law in passing the eviction deccree against the appellant on the ground of bona-fide need of the grand-son of the plaintiff/landlady. 5. On the other hand, Shri S.R. Saraf, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, while supporting the impugned judgment and decree submitted, that in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court in V.N. Deshmukh v. K.M. Kothari 1951 N.L.J.250 and three decisions of the Supreme Court K.V. Muthu v. Aangamathu Ammal; Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal; and Dwarka Prasad v. Niranjan, Courts below have committed no illegality in passing a decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act on the ground of bonafide need of the grand-son in respect of non-residential accommodation. He further submitted that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court supra, Division Bench decision in Nandkishore v. Surjudevi supra is no longer a good law. 6. It may be appropriate to mention that Joginder Pal's and Dwarka Prasad case supra have subsequently been followed and relied upon in Kaialash Chand v. Dharm Dass reported in AIR 2005 SC 2363. It may also be pointed out that in all these decisions while construing other rent legislation, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have preferred dynamic or purposive interpretation and refused to take a narrow and parochial view of the expression of his own in context of eviction of a tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement. It is also pertinent to mention that in Joginder Pal case supra the decision of the Nagpur High Court in V.N. Deshmukh case supra 1951 NLJ 250 has been approved, however, there is no direct decision of the Supreme Court construing Section 12(1)(f) of the Act in above fashion or overruling Nand Kishore supra. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are left with no option but to obtain an authoritative answer from a larger Bench to the following question, viz. whether the decision in Nand Kishore v. Surjudevi 1974 MPLJ 293 is no longer good law in view of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and as such, has it lost efficacy as a binding precedent? 8. whether the decision in Nand Kishore v. Surjudevi 1974 MPLJ 293 is no longer good law in view of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and as such, has it lost efficacy as a binding precedent? 8. Registry is therefore directed forward necessary papers so that they may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a bench of appropriate strength to decide and answer the above question.