JUDGMENT : 1. This special appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated November 25, 1992 by which he dismissed the appeal filed under Section 22, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called "the Act") against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar dated January 3, 1992 ordering striking of the defence under Section 13(5) of the Act. The facts of the case may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant-appellants for their ejectment from the suit shop on the ground of default in payment of rent. On May 9, 1991, the trial court provisionally determined the amount of Rs. 16,800/- @ Rs. 800/- per month for the period from July 22, 1989 to April 21, 1991 and Rs. 840/- as interest under Section 13(3) of the Act. These amounts were deposited by the defendant-appellants. The amounts of rent of the subsequent two months i.e. from April 22, 1991 to May 21, 1991 and from May 22, 1991 to June 21, 1991 were deposited on June 10, 1991 and July 13, 1991 respectively. The plaintiff-respondent moved an application under Section 13(3) of the Act for striking out the defence on the ground that these deposits were not made in time. In their reply, the defendants admitted that the two amounts of Rs. 800/- each were deposited on June 10, 1991 and July 13, 1991 respectively. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court struck out the defence by its order dated January 3, 1992. In the memorandum of their appeal filed under Section 22 of the Act, the defendants stated that the amounts of monthly rent were deposited as advised by their counsel and there was no delay as amounts were deposited before the 15th day of the subsequent Gregorian calendar month. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal by his order dated November 25, 1992 as said above. 3. We have perused the order of the trial Court dated January 3, 1992, judgment of the learned Single Judge dated November 25, 1992, memorandum of appeal filed under Section 22 of the Act and memorandum of appeal filed under Section 18, Rajasthan High Court Ordinance and also heard the appellant No. 2. 4. 3. We have perused the order of the trial Court dated January 3, 1992, judgment of the learned Single Judge dated November 25, 1992, memorandum of appeal filed under Section 22 of the Act and memorandum of appeal filed under Section 18, Rajasthan High Court Ordinance and also heard the appellant No. 2. 4. Admittedly, defence was struck out by Single Judge under Section 13(5) of the Act for depositing the rent of two months, namely, (1) from April 22, 1991 to May 21, 1991 and (2) May 22, 1991 to June 21, 1991 by 15 days of the succeeding month as required under Section 13(4) of the Act. These amounts of rent were deposited on June 10, 1991 and July 13, 1991 respectively. The application for extension of time in respect of these two deposits was moved before the learned Single Judge stating that the defendants have no intention to commit any default in payment of rent and they deposited the rent as per advice of their counsel Mr. Subhash Narang, Advocate, Sri Ganganagar. Admittedly, no application was moved before the trial Court for the extension of time. It was also not urged during arguments that the amounts were deposited as per advice of their counsel. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the defendant-appellant did not file any affidavit of their counsel in support of their application. 5. It is correct that the trial Court could extend the time of deposit by 15 days as provided under Section 13(4) of the Act. Neither any application was moved nor any reason for extension was put forward. Section 13(4) does not contemplate automatic extension of time. 6. The learned Single Judge has rightly interpreted the words "by 15th of each succeeding month" appearing in Section 13(4) of the Act as 15th of each succeeding tenancy month and not by the 15th of each succeeding Gregorian tenancy month and not by the 15th of each succeeding calendar month. According to Section 32(46), Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 month' shall mean as reckoned according to the British calendar. According to Section 32(46), Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 month' shall mean as reckoned according to the British calendar. It may be mentioned that Section 32 starts with the following clause : "Unless there be anything repugnant in the subject or context or unless the contrary intention appears the following expression shall have the meaning respectively arising of them hereby, namely." It is well settled law that the rent of a tenancy month accrues on the last day of the tenancy month and not on the last day of Hindi, English or Saka month. 7. It is correct that in Vishan Das v. Savitri Devi, AIR 1988 Raj. 198 , it has been held that the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act are directory and not mandatory and the court has power in the interest of justice and equity to extend time within the limit prescribed under Section 13(4) of the Act. It has also been held that the court is vested with a discretion to order either striking out of the defence, depending on the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, and further since the court had discretion to condone the default, therefore, it has also the power to extend time for payment or deposit the rent in the court. 8. It is stated in para No. 4 of the memorandum of appeal filed under Section 22 of the Act that the amounts of rent of the following periods were deposited as given below: S. No. Period Date of deposit 1. 22.4.1991 to 21.5.1991 10.6.1991 2. 22.5.1991 to 21.6.1991 13.7.1991 3. 22.6.1991 to 21.7.1991 13.8.1991 4. 22.7.1991 to 21.8.1991 13.9.1991 5. 22.8.1991 to 21.9.1991 13.10.1991 6. 22.9.1991 to 21.10.1991 13.11.1991 7. 22.10.1991 to 21.11.1991 13.12.1991. This shows that the defendant-appellants did not deposit the rent of the subsequent five months within 15 days of their accrual despite the fact that an application under Section 13(5) of the Act had been moved by the plaintiff-respondent for striking out their defence for not depositing the rent of first two months, namely, April 22, 1991 to May 21, 1991 and May 22, 1991 to June 21, 1991, in time. This shows that the defendants were persistently making defaults in deporting the rent. This shows that the defendants were persistently making defaults in deporting the rent. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the trial Court in striking out the defence was arbitrary and the order of the learned Single Judge confirming the order of the trial Court was not justified. Thus there is no force in the special appeal. 9. Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed.