G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Addl. District judge, Bijapur, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 19 of 1974, on his file, allowing the appeal of the landlord (the present writ-petitioner) and ordering eviction of the tenant from the suit premises giving the tenant sufficient time to vacate the same. ( 2 ) THE landlord no doubt took action for eviction of the tenant under proviso (h) to sub-section (1) of S. 21 of the karnataka Rent Control Apt, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), stating that he required the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for his occupation. The learned Munsiff held that the landlord proved his bona fides and that the requirement was reasonable. But, he held that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant if evicted, as the tenant was running a school in the suit premises and in that view, he dismissed the application of the landlord. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord filed an appeal and the learned Addl District Judge, who heard the appeal, allowed the same, as stated above, it is against that order that the present writ petition is filed by the government (tenant ). ( 3 ) AT the very outset, it was submitted before me that the learned Munsiff and the learned District Judge could not entertain the application for eviction under proviso (h) to sub-section (I) of S. 21 of the Act as the premises were exempt under S. 2 (7) of the Act. 3a. Section 2 (7) of the Act reads:"nothing in this Act shall apply- (a) - (bb) ** ** ** (c) to any tenancy or other like relationship cereated by a grant from the State Government or the central Government in respect of any premises taken on lease or requisitioned by the State Government or the Central Government. " ( 4 ) THUS, it is clear that the exemption applies to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a gran from the State Government or the central Government and not to any lease taken by the Government on lease. Therefore, there is no substance in that point. ( 5 ) IT was next contended that the court below was not justified in holding that the tenant would not be put to greater hardship in case of eviction. Therefore, there is no substance in that point. ( 5 ) IT was next contended that the court below was not justified in holding that the tenant would not be put to greater hardship in case of eviction. ( 6 ) IT may cause, comparatively, a little more hardship to the tenant. But that is amply relieved and off set by the learned District Judge by granting time. Hence, there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge on that submission also. ( 7 ) MOREOVER, this writ petition was filed in the year 1976 and stay was granted. Now four years have elapsed. Therefore, sufficient time is granted to the tenant to make arrangement for alternative accommodation. It may also be mentioned that the eviction petition was filed as early as in january 1971. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, therefore, there is no substance in this writ petition which is liable to be dismissed and I dismiss the same. The writ- petitioner / tenant, however, is granted time till the end of the academic year viz. , end of April 1981, to vacate the suit premises, provided the arrears of rental is paid within one month and the rent is continued to be paid from month to month till the end of april 1981; failing which, the landlord is at liberty to execute the order of eviction forthwith. No costs. --- *** --- .