Case: Kamal Arora Vs. Amar Singh and Others

t contested the petition inter alia on the ground that the building in question is being used for running a school and therefore, it is abuilding within the meaning of the expression in the Rent Act and therefore the landlord was not entitled to recover possession on the ground that he bona fide required the same for residence more so after having knowingly let it out foruse. The trial court dismissed the petition holding that thehad leased the premises to the tenant to be used forpurpose and therefore the landlord is not entitled to recover possession on the ground that he required the same for his residence. The appellate court in appeal by the respondent reversed the decree of the Rent Controller and ordered eviction and this decree for eviction was confirmed by the High Court.

Reasoning:
The tenant is in occupation and has been using the premises for reasonably long time and he must be in a position to make alternate arrangement. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Theis given time to adjust its affairs and vacate the premises up to and inclusive of June 30, 1984 on condition that the appellant files an undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today to the following effectThat the appellant will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent on or before June 30, 1984.2. That the appellant will pay to respondent arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today.3. That the appellant will pay to respondent future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before the 10th of every succeeding month.4. That the appellant will not induct any other person in the suit premises.