1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15530/2009 Gopal Sharma Vs Abdul Majid 16.12.2010 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Sudesh Bansal - for petitioner Mr AS Lunia – for respondent BY THE COURT: By this writ petition a challenge has been made to the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City / Rent Appellate court. The aforesaid order was passed on the appeal preferred by the respondent-tenant. The controversy involved is regarding delay in deposition of rent pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated 22.5.2008. As per decision of the High Court, respondent tenant was under an obligation to pay amount of arrears of rent within a period of one month. The amount of arrears of rent was deposited on 23.6.2008. Petitioner landlord accordingly made an application for striking out the defence of the respondent tenant having defaulted in making the payment within the period 2 specified. The application was allowed, however, the order is reversed by the appellate court. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order was passed by the High Court on 22.5.2008 and, if the aforesaid date is excluded for counting one month's period and accordingly the period of one month is counted from 23.5.2008 then also thirty days time ends on 21.6.2008. The respondent tenant deposited arrears of rent on 23.6.2008. Thus, there is a default of two days in deposition of rent. Accordingly, defence was rightly struck off by the trial court and interference therein by the appellate court was not called for, thus order may be set aside. Learned counsel for respondent tenant submits that the appellate court has correctly taken the view and set aside the order passed by the trial court. For determination of one month's period, 23.5.2008 was taken to be first day for counting period of one month and it was held to end on 22.6.2008. The aforesaid last date being Sunday, respondent deposited the arrears of rent on 23.6.2008 thus it was taken to be deposition of rent within time. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the record of the case. 3 If the facts narrated above are taken in consideration, the only issue is as to how one month's period has to be reckoned from the date of order passed by the High Court i.e. 22.5.2008. Learned counsel for petitioner has conceded that period is to be counted from the next date of the order i.e. 23.5.2008 excluding the date of passing of the order. The only argument is that one month's period should be reckoned as thirty days. As per General Clauses Act English Calendar is to be taken into consideration for determination of one month's period. I have considered the aforesaid and find that the period for making payment was of one month and not thirty days. A month may be of 31, 30 or even 28 and 29 days depending upon the month. In all situation, one month period should be reckoned by one yard-stick. Accordingly, as and when determination of one month period is to be made, it should be calculated to end it a day earlier from which it started. In the instant case, period of one month is to be determined from 23.5.2008 and, obviously, if it is to end a day earlier, the day comes to 22.6.2008. 22.6.2008 being Sunday, the deposition of arrears of rent on 23.6.2008 cannot be said to be in default resulting striking out defence. My view is supported by the judgment reported in AIR 1972 SC 1293 and AIR 1982 (Raj) 179. 4 Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner land lord. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that looking to the delay in disposal of the pending suit, an observation for expeditious trial may be made. The prayer is accepted. The trial court is expected to complete the proceedings within reasonable time preferably within one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (MN Bhandari) J. bnsharma