JUDGMENT S. Ali Ahmad, J. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants to a suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents for eviction from the suit premises, as well for realisation of arrears of rent beginning from January 1971 up to the date of filing of the suit @ Rs. 25/- per month. A decree for eviction, as prayed for; was passed but the decree for arrears of rent was limited for the period beginning from February, 1976 to July 1977. Appeal against decree passed by the trial court failed. Thereafter this second appeal has been filed. 2. According to the plaintiffs they purchased the suit premises under a registered sale deed dated 31.1.77 from one Alim Uddin. It is said that on their purchase they requested the defendants to pay current rent as well as arrears of rent beginning from January 1971 to them but neither the arrears were paid nor the current rent was given therefore this suit was filed. 3. The defence inter-alia was that they had paid Rs. 319.55 paise to the Gaya Municipality as Municipal Tax for the whole year. They further said that they had spent Rs. 2000/- over the repairs of the suit premises. According to them, therefore, the amount of Rs. 2319.55 paise had to be adjusted towards rent. The Courts below have concurrently rejected the plea made by the defendants that they had spent Rs. 2000/- over repairs of the premises. With regard to the payment of taxes the courts below have said that half of the amount was paid by the defendants. Be that as it may, even if the whole amount is adjusted then that will be only for just over one year. The finding of the two courts below is that the defendant had not paid rent from February, 1976 to July 1977. This period by no stretch of imagination can be covered by payment of Rs. 319.55 paise which the defendants allege to have paid towards Municipal dues. I, therefore, see no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. 4. Mr. Asghar Hussain appearing on behalf of the appellants stated that some time may be given to the appellants to find out alternative accommodation. The suit premises are situated within the town of Gaya where it is not easy to get housing accommodation. I, therefore, see no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. 4. Mr. Asghar Hussain appearing on behalf of the appellants stated that some time may be given to the appellants to find out alternative accommodation. The suit premises are situated within the town of Gaya where it is not easy to get housing accommodation. He also says that be gives undertaking to the court that he will vacate the suit premises latest by 30th September, 1987. 5. In this view of the matter, I directed that the decree for eviction wm not be executed till 30th Sept. 1987. It also made clear that in case the appellants did not hand over possession of the suit premises on or before 30th September, 1987 then they may be liable to be punished for contempt of this court. It is also made clear that the appellant will continue to pay compensation @ Rs. 25/- per month to the plaintiffs respondents till they actually vacate the suit premises.