The scope of section 40 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is limited to such mistakes or errors which can be corrected without involving an exercise of mind in interpreting statutory provisions, reaching conclusions of or drawing inferences from facts.

( 1 ) SMT. Chandra Kanta, the landlady, is the owner of the premises in dispute consisting of two portions; (a) one hall, store, part of a courtyard with a right to use the lobby in common and latrine, and (b) hall with a bath and W/c. The respondent, Khem Chand Malik, is the tenant, to whom portion (a) was let out with effect from July 12, 1965, on a monthly rent of Rs. 555/, and portion (b) with effect from August 5, 1967 on a monthly rent of Rs. 500.

( 2 ) SOMETIMES later the parties mutually agreed that with respect to portion (a) rent of Rs. 555 per month would prevail up to August 12, 1970 (i. e. during the first five years of the tenancy); and thereafter Rs. 335 per month would bs the standard rent. On the basis of this agreement, Shri S. R. Goel, the Additional Controller, fixed the standard rent of that portion of the premises at Rs. 335 per month with effect from August 13, 1970. Regarding portion (b), the parties mutually agreed that the rate of rent of Rs. 500 per month would prevail up to August 15, 1970; and thereafter the said rent was to be Rs. 300 per month. No order of the Controller was obtained to confirm this as the standard rent for this portion.

( 3 ) ON August 27, 1969 the appellant landlady filed an eviction petition against the respondent on the grounds that the premises were required bona fide by her for the purpose of construction of first and second floors and that the respondent had caused substantial damage to ths premises. An application under section 15 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, herein called the Act was also filed. The respondent tenant pleaded in reply that the landlady was entitled to claim for both the portions, rent at the rate of Rs. 635 per month only, which was said to be the standard rent. On December 4, 1969 Shri P. K. Bahri Additional Controller ordered the respondent-tenant to pay Rs. 555 per month for portion (a) and Rs. 500 for portion (b) from August 1, 1969 onwards, till the date of the application (November 13, 1969) and there after continue to pay at the same rate month by month by the 15th day of each following month till the disposal of the petition. No appeal was filed against this order, which became final under section 43 of the Act.

( 4 ) ON August 14, 1970 the respondent tenant filed an application under section 40 of the Act read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the order under section 15 (2), on the ground that there was an error in the order, arising out of an accidental slip or omission, as the aforesaid reductions in the rent after August, 1970 had been omitted to be given effect to. The reduced rent was said to be the standard rent. This application was opposed. Shri P. K. Jain Additional Controller by his order dated November 26, 1970 held that the standard rent of the premises has no bearing on the case inasmuch as the rent last paid was to be taken into account, which was Rs. 555 per month in the case of portion (a), and Rs. 500 per month in the case of portion (b ). There was, thus, no error in the said order. The application was dismissed. In appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal reversed the order of the Additional Controller and held that there was an accidental slip or omission. According to the Tribunal, the order under section 15 (2) should require the tenant to pay the amount legally recoverable. Therefore, the rate of rent at which it was last paid had no relevance. It was of the opinion that an error arising out of accidental slip or omission had arisen and the order was, therefore, liable to be amended. The appeal was accepted and the order of the Additional Controller under section 15 (2) was set aside. The respondent tenant was directed to pay Rs. 335 per month for the portion (a) from August 13, 1970 onwards and Rs. 300 for the portion (b) from August 16, 1970 onwards. The landlady, in these circumstances, has come up to this Court in second appeal.

( 5 ) THE appeal came up for hearing before