1. District Judge is in error in holding that the attachment proceedings cannot be taken where the rent is payable in kind. The appeals however fail on other ground. We agree with the District Judge in holding that an appeal by way of a summary suit presented against an attachment under Section 40 of the Kent Recovery Act (Act VIII of 1885) is within time if presented within 30 days. No doubt in Section 40 the word used is "month." But that section must be read with Section 51 which lays down that summary suits under the Act must be presented within 30 days. We think that the reasonable construction is to hold that the term month in Section 40 WHS intended to he an equivalent to the period "of 30 days as provided for in respect of all summary suits in Section 51, It was next urged for the appellant that the attachment should be upheld to the extent of the rent actually in arrear in accordance with the puttas now upheld. This contention cannot be accepted. Under the recent Full Bench ruling the appellant has to tender a patta according to the final decision before he can proceed to enforce the terms of the tenancy. Therefore the ruling in Ramachandra v. Narayansami I.L.R. Ma