( 1 ) THIS petition by the landlord decree-holder, is directed against an ordar made by the Dist. Judge at Gulbarga in HRC Appeal 21/1973, whereby he reversed the order made by the Prl. Munsiff-Magistrate at Gulbarga in Ex. Petn. 140/1972 and dismissed the application for execution. The execution was pursuant to a decree of eviction made by the Prl. Munsiff in an HRC proceeding based on the ground of default in payment of rentsr. 47 falling within cl. (a) of the proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Bent Control Act. The order made in the latter proceedings reads thus : the opponent (the present appellant-tenant) shall deposit or pay to the petitioner (present respondent) a sum of Rs. 154-08p, being arrears of rent legally recoverable till the end of Octar. 1972 within one month from the date of this order, failing this the landord shall be put in possession of the suit house. ( 2 ) THE above order came to be made on 30-9-1972, the last day of the calendar month. The tenant however for one reason or other, deposited this amount apparently in compliance with the direction contained in the aforesaid order, on 31-10-1972. The landlord-revision petitioner sued out execution on the ground that such payment was clearly beyond the time allowed by the said order. ( 3 ) THE learned Munsiff accepted the contention of the landlord and allowed the execution to proceed. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant (respondent herein) preferred an appeal to the learned Dist. Judge with the aforementioned result. Hence this petition. ( 4 ) SRI J. S. Gunjal the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submited that even assuming that the day on which the said order came to be made should be excluded from computation of the period in question, it was the clear duty of the tenant to have paid the amount in question on 30-10-1972, and therefore the payment made on 31st of that month was clearly beyond time. I am not persuaded to accept this submission. ( 5 ) SEC. 3 (22) of the Karnataka General Clauses Act which is the statute applicable in regard to the interpretation of the statutes, enacted by the Legislature of the State, reads thus : month shall mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar. I am not persuaded to accept this submission. ( 5 ) SEC. 3 (22) of the Karnataka General Clauses Act which is the statute applicable in regard to the interpretation of the statutes, enacted by the Legislature of the State, reads thus : month shall mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar. It is clear from the above interpretation that the month in accordance with the British calendar for the purposes of fulfilment of the condition in the aforementioned order, is the month of October of the year 1972. If the period for the purpose of computation in question, Had commenced some time in the middle of the month of September or even the 30th of that month, Sri Gunjal would be clearly well-founded in his contention that the calendar month would certainly come to an end on the 30th of the succeeding month. In the instant case it is clear that the 30th September, the day on which the order in question came to be made, requires to be excluded for the purpose of such computation. That such is the position in law, is made clear from the provision of S. 9 of the General Clauses Act. In this view, the time commences to run against the tenant, for the purpose of the order, on the 1st Octr. , 1972. In this situation and in the light of the definition of the word month reproduced earlier, the month in question would only come to an end on the last day of October. I am, therefore clearly of the view that the payment made on the 31st Octr, 1972 is clearly within time and the order of the learned Dist Judge is therefore right. ( 6 ) THE petition, therefore, is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .