GOPAL SINGH Vs. SURAJ DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant-tenant's revision against the trial Court's order dated April 5, 1983 rejecting the defendant's application dated February 19, 1983 made for correction of the trial Court's earlier order dated October 11, 1979 striking out the defence. The material facts are stated hereunder:

(2.) THE suit was filed on March 9, 1978 for eviction of the defendant on certain grounds contained in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). THE monthly rent admittedly was Rs. 15/ -. THE trial Court made an order on May 25, 1978 under Section 13 (3) of the Act determining Rs. 150/- as the arrears of rent due from the defendant-tenant for the period of ten months at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month and directed payment of the same together with interest thereon accounting to Rs. 37. 50 or in all the sum of Rs. 187. 50. This amount of Rs. 187. 50 was deposited by the defendant-tenant the same day on May 25, 1978 for payment to the plaintiff-landlord. THEreafter the defendant-tenant paid on July 27, 1978 the sum of Rs. 30/- as rent for the months of May and June and continued to pay the subsequent rent regularly as required by Section 13 of the Act.

(3.) IN my opinion, this revision must be allowed in accordance with the legal maxim. 'actus curiae neminem gravabit. ' To hold otherwise would be to perpetuate injustice on admitted facts when the Court undoutedly has inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice which is reiterated in section 151 C. P. C. Section 152 C. P. C. also is significant inasmuch as it enables and also requires the Court to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in its orders arising therein from any accidental slip or omission and '' such a correction can be made at any time even suo moto. The power coupled with the duty of the Court flowing from sections 151 and 152 C. P. C. is wide enough to do justice in the present case By correcting the arithmetical mistake of specifying Rs. 37. 50 instead of Rs. 4. 12 as the interest due from the defendant in the order dated May 25, 1978 under section 13 (3) of the Act; consequently directing adjustment of the excess amount of Rs. 33. 38 towards the rent due for the months'of May a. 06. 1978 and thereafter; and as a logical consequence thereof to rescind the order dated October 11, 1979 striking out the defence on account of the lack of foundation of any default by the defendant-tenant which is a jurisdictional fact necessary for making such an order. Once the true facts are brought to the notice of the court, it becomes its duty to correct the mistake and relieve the defendant of the injustice resulting from the aforesaid erroneous orders passed by the Court on the basis of an arithmetical mistake and misapprehension of facts [keshavdeo Chamaria v. Radha Kissan Chamaria (1) and L. Janakirama Iyer v. P. M. Nilakemta Iyer (2)].