In fact, I read this:In any summary ejectment (eviction) for failure to pay rent where the landlord is awarded a judgment allowing the landlord to repossess the leased premises, the tenant has the right to remain in the leased premises by giving cash, a certified check, or money order to the landlord or his agent to cover all past due rent and late fees, plus court-awarded costs and fees at any time before the actual carrying out of the eviction order.

If you want to evict them, you'll soon discover that you must perform an ejectment--kinda like a foreclosure. 

You should file an ejectment lawsuit against the heirs before you do any work at all.

When things go sideways, the landlord/seller may be required to EJECT, not EVICT the tenant/buyer.

Had a lawyer friend tell me I had to file for an ejection in district court and not eviction in civil court.

It goes as follows: FEES FOR COMPLAINT FOR SUMMARY EJECTMENT AND OR MONEY OWED: In the event that Landlord determines it is necessary to file an action for summary ejectment and/or money owed, Tenant shall be responsible for the associated costs.

BTW, the next thing that will occur is the new owner will file for ejectment/eviction.

If you credit part of the rent towards the purchase, you are giving the tenant (arguably) some equitable rights to the property, which will mean when things go sideways, as they usually do in a lease w option, you will have to do an ejectment vs an eviction.Think FORECLOSURE type of process. 

The sheriffs will be backlogged for months after that for scheduling the physical ejections .  

My husbands family maintained and used the road since the 1960s (open, notorious, obvious, continuous use, actual possession (physically used it & treated it like we owned it) and controlled the gate for the last 20 years, ejected trespassers & breaking general public easement, etc.