JUDGMENT Ray, J. : The appeal along with the application dated 18th November, 1986 were disposed of by this Court on 17th December, 1986 by which this Court on compassionate ground directed the C.I.T. not to throw the appellant out of possession of the flat in question for three months from the date of the judgment so that he could find out an alternative accommodation and also make an application before the C. I. T. for fresh consideration of his prayer for tenancy. Such time for three months on compassionate ground was, however, made on terms and it was directed that the appellant should be allowed to retain his occupation of the disputed flat for three months in terms of the said order provided he would pay occupation charges of the said flat at the rate of which the rent had been fixed for the said flat including the arrears of rent, if any, due to the C. I. T. and the arrears of occupation charges were directed to be paid within one month from the date of the judgment. In default of such payment, the permission for occupation of the flat for three months from the date of the order will stand vacated. 2. The appellant thereafter made an application for extension of time to make such payment and on such application the time to make payment was extended by three weeks from the date of the subsequent order, namely. January 30, 1987. Such order was passed in absence of the appellant-petitioner and on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the C. I. T. that Rs. 36,157.50 P. was due on account of the occupation charges of the said flat. 3. A further application for extension of time and for payment of the arrears of rent has been made by the appellant and the appellant has disputed the amount due, as submitted by the C. I. T. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the occupation charges by way of rental at the rate of Rs. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the occupation charges by way of rental at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month is due to C. I. T. from January, 1978 to April, 1980 that is, for 28 months, and thereafter, from May, 1982 up to December, 1986, that is for 56 months, and for the months of January, February and March, 1987 if the appellant continues to stay upto the middle of March, 1987 in terms of the order of this Court. 5. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on 11th February, 1987 Rs. 5,000/-, on 19th February, 1987 a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- and on 23rd February, 1987 further sum of Rs. 5,100/-, thus totalling Rs. 15,100/- has been paid to the C.I.T. The learned Counsel has also stated that by Money Order on 16th January, 1987 a sum of Rs. 900/- has been sent to the C.I.T. towards the occupation charges from January to March, 1987. On instruction, the learned Counsel for the C. I. T. has submitted that the said sum of Rs. 900/- has not been received by his client as yet. However, we take into account that the said sum of Rs. 900/- had in fact been sent by Money Order on 16th January, 1987. By the aforesaid process a total sum of Rs. 16,000/- has been paid by the appellant towards the occupation charges. 6. It appears to us that altogether 87 months upto March, 1987 should be taken into account for the purposes of computing the arrears of occupation charges and on such accounting Rs. 26,100/- is required to be paid to the C. I. T. at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. In our view, C. I. T. cannot claim payment of interest in terms of the order, and after payment of Rs. 16,000/-, an amount of Rs. 10,100/- remains due by the appellant to the C. I. T. The appellant has submitted that because of extreme financial difficulties he is not in a position to pay the said sum immediately and two weeks time more should be granted to the appellant to make the payment. 16,000/-, an amount of Rs. 10,100/- remains due by the appellant to the C. I. T. The appellant has submitted that because of extreme financial difficulties he is not in a position to pay the said sum immediately and two weeks time more should be granted to the appellant to make the payment. The learned Counsel has also stated before this Court that on the basis of his representation, the C. I. T. has also fixed the date for hearing of his application on the 28th February, 1987. 7. It is not necessary for us to make any comment on the representation made by the appellant since the said representation has been fixed for hearing in terms of the order of this Court. 8. Considering the submissions made by the appellant-petitioner we are extending the time to make payment of the balance sum of Rs. 10,100/- by 7th March, 1987 as a last chance. In default, the direction for occupation of the said flat in terms of the order passed by this Court on 17th December, 1986, as amended later on, will stand vacated. 9. We make it clear that this order is made without prejudice to the respective contentions to be made at the hearing of the representation made before the C. I. T. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed to this application, but the contentions made therein are not accepted by the respondents. The application is disposed of, as above. There will be no order as to costs. Majumdar, J. : I agree.