ABHAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. GUDAR MAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) IN the opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the court below refusing to make correction in a decree dated 27.11.1998 in Title Suit No. 144/1987 (Eviction) as sought for by the petitioner after almost six years by filing an application dated 14.9.2004 purportedly in exercise of the power under Sections 152 & 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The plea of the petitioner -decree holder that in a suit for eviction, the Court below in its judgment in paragraph no. 32 had committed a clerical error and the same was fit to be deleted, is wholly misconceived. It has to be noted that the petitioner -landlord had filed a suit for eviction being Title Suit No. 144 of 1987 (Eviction) which was allowed by the judgment dated 27th November, 1998 by passing the final order, which reads as follows: - "that the suit be and same is decreed on contest with partial eviction, the defendant is directed to vacate the northern one door space out of his three door space and make its possession over to the plaintiff within two months from the date of this judgment/order. Otherwise he will be evicted from said one door space of northern side of suit shop by process of law."

(3.) IT has to be noted here that the petitioner being the decree holder did not choose to file any appeal or revision or even a review of the said judgment and after a period of almost six years had filed the application for amendment of the judgment in paragraph no. 32 by suggesting that the last sentence of paragraph no. 32 to the effect that "Since defendant is io vacate one door space out of 3 door space so plaintiff should reduce the rent to proportionately" was a clear clerical error inasmuch as the Civil Court had no power to give any finding with regard to the enhancement or reduction of a rent of the premises in question. It was in this regard that the Counsel for the petitioner had also relied on the provision of Section 5 of the B.B.C. Act to show that enhancement or reduction of rent was exclusively within the domain and powers of the house controller and not the Civil Court.