SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner filed eviction proceedings against respondent No. 1, the tenant and other parties alleging them to be sub-tenants. The eviction was sought on grounds of Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, "the said Act") for non-payment of rent, under Section 14 (1) (b) of the said Act for sub-letting and under Section 14 (1) (j) of the said act for causing substantial damage to the premises.

( 2 ) THE Court of the Additional Rent Controller (for short, "arc") allowed the petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the said Act giving the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the said Act. The petitioner succeeded on the ground of Section 14 (1) (b) of the said Act on account of sub-letting to M/s. Wimpy Fast Food Pvt. Ltd. as also under Section 14 (1) (j) of the said Act. Benefit of Section 14 (11)was given so far as ground of Section 14 (1) (j) of the said Act is concerned.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 availed of the appellate remedy and the appeals were dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal" ). The second appeals filed before this Court are pending consideration. The petitioner sought to take out execution proceedings in respect of the tenanted premises and it is during those proceedings, it transpired that there was some problem in the possession being taken over on account of the fact that the eviction order dated 03. 03. 1999 had referred to a site-plan Ex. AW"6/8, while, in fact, that was not the complete tenanted premises. The total premises consisted of Ex. AW"6/8 and ex. AW"7/1 being the two site-plans. The petitioner filed applications under sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Code") seeking a prayer that the eviction order be corrected by incorporating Ex. AW"7/1 in para 46 of Page 49 of the judgment dated 03. 03. 1999 where the reference had been made to the site-plan Ex. AW"6/8. This application of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 06. 05. 2004 resulting in the present revision petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the eviction petition was filed on 18. 04. 1970 in respect of the premises bearing shop No. N/5, "n" Block, connaught Place, Janpath, New Delhi. The premises have been so specified in column 1 of the eviction petition where the municipal no. of the premises and the name are to be given. In column no. 8 where details of accommodation available together with particulars as regards the ground area, garden and outhouse have been given, it has been stated as under:"1. Shop No. N/5, N Block, connaught Place, Janpath, new Delhi. 8. Shop hall with a loft, store- room and bath room with one room out of outhouses on the back of the building N-Block, Plan attached. "

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 was alleged to have parted with possession of the suit premises to one M/s. Wimpy Fast Food Pvt. Ltd. , who were carrying on the business of restaurant in the suit premises and along with the eviction petition, two plans were attached. The first plan Ex. AW"6/8 is in respect of the outhouse, while Ex. AW"7/1 is in respect of the main shop. The eviction order dated 03. 03. 1999 itself has defined the tenanted premises to include both what have been set out in Ex. AW"6/8 and Ex. AW"7/1. The details of these are as under:" (i) Page 3 of the judgment : Thus respondent No. 1 became tenant of the petitioner by operation of law in respect of premises in dispute detailed above comprising of shop hall with a loft, store-room and bath room with one room out of out-houses on the back of the building N-Block as per site plan attached with the petition. (ii) Page 7 of the judgment : It was not denied by the respondent that he was not a tenant in the premises in dispute. He admitted that tenanted premises consists of main hall, a small room, a bath room, a mezzanine floor and a quarter in the backyard. (iii) Page 40 of the judgment : Altho