Shishir Kumar, J.- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This is the defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff as Suit No. 1234 of 1995. 3. The facts, as stated in the plaint, are that Suit No. 1234 of 1995 has been filed by the plaintiff Shiv Mandir with a prayer that a decree of permanent injunction be granted against the defendants to handover the possession of the disputed land. Further, a prayer has also been made in the plaint that defendants be directed to make payment of Rs.555/- as rent for the period 01.01.93 to 07.10.93 and to make payment of Rs. 1520/- as rent for the period 08.10.93 to 20.11.95. 4. It was stated that the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff in the disputed property for Rs.60/- per month. Without taking consent of the plaintiff, a construction has been made by the defendant on the rented area and has constructed two tin sheds and one kacha kotha. A legal notice was sent to the defendant for non-pay­ment of rent, however, it was not paid. Hence, the cause of action arose for filing the suit. 5. The trial court framed various issues on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff has relied on the judgment in Original Suit No. 730 of 1993, filed by the defendant against the plaintiff. However, in the year 1995, when the present suit was filed Nagar Panchayat, Loni, issued a notice to the defendant stat­ing therein that the land on which he had built his shop belonged to the Nagar Panchayat. This shows that the land of which plaintiff was claiming his ownership actually be­longed to the Nagar Panchayat, which has not been made a party to the present suit. Moreover, statements of PW-1 reveal that he has no idea as to whom the suit prop­erty belongs. After recording such findings, the trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2009. 6. The plaintiff against the order, passed by the trial court, filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. On behalf of the plaintiff, paper No. 51 ga, certified copy of statement of Lalman in Suit No. 730 of 1993 and paper No. 53ga, certified copy of judgment in Suit No. 730 of 1993 has been filed. 6. The plaintiff against the order, passed by the trial court, filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. On behalf of the plaintiff, paper No. 51 ga, certified copy of statement of Lalman in Suit No. 730 of 1993 and paper No. 53ga, certified copy of judgment in Suit No. 730 of 1993 has been filed. On behalf of the defendants, DW-1 Rajendra and DW-2 Ravindra Kumar have filed their affidavits. The appellate court on the basis of those documents has recorded a finding that case setup by Lalman to the effect that the land in dispute belongs to Nagar Panchayat and Nagar Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute cannot be believed. In para 18 of the written statement he has admitted this fact that the land belongs to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has encroached upon various lands and possibly the rent is being realized. From the record it is also clear that Lalman has filed a Suit No. 730 of 1993, in which he has made a statement and has admitted this fact that the disputed land belongs to the plaintiff and he is occupying the land from 20 years after paying Rs.60/- per month as rent. He has also admitted this fact that this open land has been given to him on rent and the receipt of rent was relating to open land. A finding has been recorded that once he is admitting in other suit filed by him that this land belongs to the plaintiff how at this stage he can say in a subsequent proceeding that this property belongs to Nagar Panchayat. The appellate court after considering all the evidences on record has allowed the appeal for recovery of rent as well as for injunction. Hence, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants/appellants. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that construction was made by the defendants/appellants, but the plaintiff has not objected to it, therefore, there will be a presumption that it has been constructed with his consent. He has further stated that appellants are ready to pay some more rent in case the landlord is ready to accept it. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that he is not ready to give any concession on the basis of instruction given by his client. 9. He has further stated that appellants are ready to pay some more rent in case the landlord is ready to accept it. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that he is not ready to give any concession on the basis of instruction given by his client. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, after considering the find­ings recorded by the courts below, I am of the opinion that in a suit filed by the appellants themselves they are admitting this fact that the open land was given on rent and they have raised certain constructions and failed to prove the permission by the landlord regarding raising the construction. Further, in earlier Suit No. 730 of 1993 they themselves have admitted the title of the plaintiff/respondent, therefore, in the present suit they cannot deny the title saying that the property belongs to the Nagar Panchayat. A finding for default has been recorded that they have not paid the rent. Further, in case a person who has taken the open land on rent and changed the nature of the land, legally is liable for eviction. 10. In view of the aforesaid fact, I see no justification to interfere. The findings recorded by the appellate court are findings of fact and as no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal, it is hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, feeling the hardship of the appellants, eight months' time is granted from today to vacate and give the peaceful possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiff/respondent. In case the appellants filed an affida­vit before the court below with a clear undertaking that they will handover peaceful possession of the property in dispute immediately after expiry of the period of eight months, without inducting any other person, then in that circumstance the court below will grant such time and they will be permitted to occupy the said premises. It is made clear that appellants will also pay rent accordingly for the said period and in case of any default this benefit will not be provided to them and respondent can get the decree executed through court of law. 11. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.