Judgment M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of Additional District Judge, Sikar dated 25-7-86 whereby the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sikar dated 1-5-84. The learned Additional Munsif rejected the plaintiff-respondents application dated 4-2-84 u/s. 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 for striking out the defence. A few facts may briefly be noted. ( 2 ) THE trial Court determined the provisional rent u/s. 13 (3) on 29-3-1978. The order reads as under:- ( 3 ) THE tenant continued to deposit rent in compliance of the aforesaid order according to English Calendar month. It would appear from the above order that the rent was determined up to 31-3-1978 to the tune of Rs. 760/ - and it was directed that this amount shall be deposited by the defendants within fifteen days. It was also directed that if any rent has been deposited earlier u/s. 19 (A) the same shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be deposited. It was also directed that rent of subsequent months shall be deposited on the 15th date of every succeeding month. The word used is `tarikh i. e. date. ( 4 ) IT is an admitted case of the parties that the tenancy between the parties was based on Hindi month and not English Calendar month and so rent was payable according to Hindi Calendar month commencing from sudi 1st of every Hindi month. The landlord submitted an application under S. 13 (5) on 4-2-84 on the basis that two months rent has not been deposited. There were Adhik Mas in Samvat Yr. 2037 and 2039. Thus on 15th of every succeeding month payment of rent of adhik Mas was not made and as such the defence of the defendant is liable to be struck down. This application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the Court had determined provisional rent on the basis of English Calendar month and a direction was given to the defendant for making payment by the 15th date of every succeeding month. The tenant took it that they are required to deposit rent by the 15th date of every succeeding month and so the order has been complied with. The tenant took it that they are required to deposit rent by the 15th date of every succeeding month and so the order has been complied with. This contention was upheld by the trial Court and the application was rejected. However, the First Appellate Court took a different view and observed that the agreed tenancy is based on Hindi month commencing from `sudi 1st and under S. 13 (4), the tenant is required to deposit rent by the 15th day of every succeeding month and month should be construed to mean the agreed month between the parties and on that basis it has been found that default has been committed by the tenants on account of nonpayment of rent for the adhik Mas which have occurred in the above two samvat years. Viewed from the point of view of Adhik Mas, it is not in dispute that default has been committed for two months but viewed from the point of view of the order passed by the trial Court, it would appear that compliance of the order has been made as the rent has been deposited regularly and no default has been committed by the defendant in depositing rent. ( 5 ) THE question that arises for consideration is as to what was the basis of the order while determining the provisional rent and whether compliance of that order was made or not. It is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents that the order dated 29-3-78 cannot be construed to mean that the rent has been provisionally determined on the basis of English Calendar month. There is an obligation of the tenant under S. 13 (4) of the Act to deposit subsequent rent by the 15th day of every succeeding month. There was no necessity for the Court to pass any order for depositing the rent for any succeeding month. The tenants were duty bound to comply with the law. They have not complied with the order as well as law and it should be taken that default has been committed by them and the learned First Appellate Court was right in striking out the defence as admittedly compliance of S. 13 (4) was not made in accordance with which rent was required to be deposited by the fifteenth day of every succeeding month meaning thereby every succeeding Hindi month. ( 6 ) SO far as the construction of the order is concerned if the order is read as a whole, it would be obvious that Court directed the tenant to make payment of rent by the 15th date of every succeeding month and rent was also determined up to 31st March, 1978. Rent was also not determined according to Hindi as no `miti was mentioned of the Hindi month, so it can be taken that the determination of rent was made on the basis of English Calendar month and tenants were directed to make payment of monthly rent by the 15th day of every succeeding month. It is true that S. 13 (4) enjoins the tenants for payment of rent by 15th day of every month as agreed upon by the parties. Viewed in that light compliance of S. 13 (4) is not made. But the question is whether under the aforesaid circumstances, when the tenants have complied with the order of the Court, their defence should be struck out or not. For long six years they continued to comply with the order and deposited the amount in accordance with the English Calendar month. Had there been a clear direction in the order that the rent is to be deposited according to Hindi month by the fifteenth day of every following Hindi month, in my opinion, the tenants would have certainly complied with that order. It appears that having regard to language and nature of the order, they took it that they are required to deposit rent by the fifteenth of every English Calendar month, else there would have been no reason for not depositing the rent in respect of `adhik Mas. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, in my opinion, it is not a case where order under S. 13 (5) needs to be passed or should be passed. On the contrary the conduct of the defendants-tenants justified to take the view that order under S. 13 (5) should not be passed. It has been held in Vishanndas v. Savitri Devi, (RLR 1988 (1) 1) that the provision contained in S. 13 (5) is not a mandatory provision but it is directory in nature. In view of the circumstances considered above, in my opinion the order of the First Appellate Court deserves to be set aside. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY this revision petition is allowed. In view of the circumstances considered above, in my opinion the order of the First Appellate Court deserves to be set aside. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY this revision petition is allowed. The order of the First Appellate Court dated 25-7-86 is set aside and the order of the trial Court dated 1-5-84 is restored. Petition allowed.