JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—-This is a revision application by the defendants in a suit for ejectment against an order of the Addl. Munsiff Ajmer striking off his defence in the suit under sec. 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 which was confirmed on appeal by the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer. 2. During the pendency of the suit for ejectment the landlord made an application on 25.11.60 for an order directing the tenants to deposit in court month by month the rent. On the same day the following order was passed:— izfroknh dks fgnk;e dh tkrh gS fd og vkbZUnk fdjk;k 15 rkjh[k rd tek djkosa o ckdh fdjk;k gj eghus dh 15 rkjh[k dks tek djkosaA The defendants deposited two months rent on 7.12.60, two months rent on 25.2.61 and four months rent on 17.4.61. On 25.9.61 an application was moved on behalf of the landlord alleging that a default in depositing the rent under sec. 13(5) had been committed and praying that his defence be struck off. On this application the learned Munsif passed an order striking off the defence. The interpretation which he put upon his own order was that the defendants were directed to deposit one months rent on 15th December 1960 and to deposit rent for succeeding months on the 15th day of each English calendar month after December 1960. According to this interpretation rent fell due on 15.12.60, 15.1.61 and so on. Two months rent was deposited on 7.12.60. This covered rant which fell due according to this interpretation, on 15.12.60 and 15.1.61. The rent which fell due according to this interpretation on 15.2.61 was deposited on 25.2.61. Thus there was a default. The appellate court agreed with the interpretation put by the learned Additional Munsif on his own order. 3. On behalf of the defendants it is contended that "month" as used in sec. 13(5) must mean the month of the tenancy. In the present case the tenancy commenced on first Sudi of each Hindi month. The tenancy thus commenced with effect from the following dates:— (1) 19.11.60 (5) 17.3.61 (2) 19.12.60 (6) 16.4.61 (3) 17.1.61 (7) I5.5.6I (4) 16.2.61 (8) 14.6.61 The month of tenancy which was current when the plaintiff made an application under sec. 13(5) and the court passed its order ended on 19.12.60. The rent for it was to be deposited by 4.1.61. 13(5) and the court passed its order ended on 19.12.60. The rent for it was to be deposited by 4.1.61. The rent for succeeding months of tenancy fell due on 2.2.61, 1.3.61, 2.4.61, 2.5.61, 1.6.61, and 29.6.61. 4. As two months rent was deposited on 7.12.60 and two months rent on 25.2.61 the rents which fell due on 4.1.61, 2.2.61, 1.3.61 and 2.4.61 were deposited in advance and there was no default. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that without any specification in the order the "month" for which the rent was to be deposited must be taken to be the month of tenancy which is current when the order is passed. In this view there was no default, I accordingly allow the revision application and set aside the order striking of the defence. The order staying further proceedings is discharged. Let the record be returned immediately to the trial court. 6. The costs of this revision application shall abide the final result of the suit.