Judgment SATYESHWAR ROY, J. 1. Defendant is the petitioner. A suit for eviction from building was filed by the opposite party-plaintiff on the ground of non-payment of rent from Aug. 1978. The suit was contested by the petitioner. He, inter alia, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. According to the plaint the rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day, whereas according to the written statement the rent was at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per month payable by the petitioner to the landlord, Faruque Azam. An application was filed by the opposite party under S.13 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (the Act) for a direction on the petitioner to deposit the arrear as well as current rent month by month. It was contested by the petitioner. The court below by order dt 16-4-1980 allowed the prayer of the opposite party. That order is impugned in this application. 2. The case was listed for hearing on 22-12-1980 before a learned Single Judge, who ordered that the case be placed for hearing before a Division Bench. 3. Mr. S. B. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, challenged the validity of the order on the ground that as according to the averment in the plaint the petitioner was to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day, he was not a tenant from month to month and the section, therefore, is not attracted. According to the plaint the petitioner was to pay Rs. 2/- per day as rent according to the English calendar month. The mode of payment was monthly but the rent was to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day. The question that arises is whether in these facts a direction under S.13 of the Act could have been given by the court below. 4. Bereft of the details, the section provides that if a tenant contests the suit for ejectment, the landlord may make an application for order on the tenant to deposit month by month rent at the rate at which it was last paid. According to Mr. Sinha the tenant referred in this section must be tenant from month to month and if he is not such a tenant, S.13 of the Act has no application. According to Mr. Sinha the tenant referred in this section must be tenant from month to month and if he is not such a tenant, S.13 of the Act has no application. Under S.2(h) of the Act tenant means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour and a person who occupies a building as an employee of the landlord of such building either on payment of rent or otherwise. The definition of tenant does not refer to a tenant who may be a month to month or otherwise, for instance a tenant for a fixed period of tenancy. Further, notwithstanding the contract between the parties, i.e., the landlord and tenant regarding the mode of payment of rent, for instance quarterly, six monthly or yearly the court has jurisdiction to order deposit month by month. In Arun Kumar Das Gupta V/s. Aditya Kumar Talapatra (1960 B.L.J.R.681) it was held that a direction to deposit the rent month by month can be given, of course calculating the rent at the rate at which it was last paid and determining its own rate of rent to be paid month by month. The last part of the observation of the learned Single Judge must be read to mean that the court has power to determine on the factual aspect, if any controversy is raised, the rent at the rate at which it was last paid vide M. N. Verma V/s. U.P. Singh (1977 BBCJ (HC) 662 : ( AIR 1978 Pat 101 ) (FB) Mr. Sinha"s contention fails. 5. Mr. Sinha submitted that in this case according to the plaint the rate of rent was Rs. 2/- per day and, therefore, the rate of rent per month will vary, for instance if the calendar month is of 30 days the rent will be Rs. 60/-, if it is 31 days the rent will be Rs. 62/-, if it is 28 days the rent will be Rs. 56/-, and if it is leap year for the month of February the rent will be Rs. 58/- No direction, Mr. Sinha urged, could have been given by the court below in this case as rent will vary from month to month. 62/-, if it is 28 days the rent will be Rs. 56/-, and if it is leap year for the month of February the rent will be Rs. 58/- No direction, Mr. Sinha urged, could have been given by the court below in this case as rent will vary from month to month. The rent payable at the end of each month on the basis of calculation of Rs. 2/- per day will of course vary according to the number of days in a calendar month. Under the section the jurisdiction of the court is to order deposit of rent month by month and at the rate at which it was last paid. The court, therefore, is required to first determine what was the rate of rent last paid and then give a direction to deposit the same month by month. There is nothing in the section which precludes the court from determining the rate of rent last paid in case where the rent is paid calculating on daily basis. In M. N. Verma"s case ( AIR 1978 Pat 101 ) (FB) (supra), I did not find any thing to suggest that the court can give a direction only if a fixed amount of rent is payable each month. If Mr. Sinha"s contention is accepted then in a case where the rent payable per month is calculated on the daily basis, this section will become otiose. The tenant in such a case will be entitled to contest the suit without payment of rent and thereby deprive the landlord from the rent he was entitled to get, irrespective of the ultimate result in the suit. This provision was introduced for the first time in 1955 for the benefit of the landlord. In determining either the general object of the legislature, or the meaning of its language in any particular passage, it is obvious that the intention which appears to be most in accord with convenience, reason, justice and legal principles should, in all cases of doubtful significance, be presumed to be true one (Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition, page 199.) I am, therefore, of the opinion that in a case where the rent is paid monthly calculating on daily basis, the court has jurisdiction to direct the tenant to deposit the rent month by month calculating on that basis. The tenant in such a case shall deposit the rent on the basis of the days of the month, here the English calendar month. 6. Mr. Sinha submitted that the court below has relied on the judgment of this Court in Second Appeal No. 416 of 1972, which arose out of a suit filed by the opposite party against the petitioner for a decree for eviction and which was ultimately dismissed by this Court. According to him the decision in the second appeal will not in any way affect this suit and it will not operate as res judicata. Mr. N. K. Prasad, who appeared on behalf of the opposite party, conceded that the judgment of the High Court will not operate as res judicata in this suit. 7. In the result, there is no merit in this case and the same is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without costs. We are informed that as the proceeding of the suit was stayed, the petitioner did not deposit the rent as ordered by the court below. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner shall deposit the arrear rent month by month calculating at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day from the date of the institution of the suit up to April, 1984 within fifteen days from the date of this order and shall deposit the rent of May, 1984 and all subsequent months within fifteen days of the next following month for which rent becomes due. if the petitioner fails to comply with any part of this order, his defence against ejectment shall be struck off. The opposite party may, if the deposits are made, withdraw the amount after furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial court. Let the records of the court below be sent down forthwith. RAMCHANDRA PRASAD SINHA, J. 8 I agree.