121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:22.01.2026 PRIYA KHANNA ...Petitioner Vs.

AJAY WADHWA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. ( Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, whereby the application dated 16.12.2025 (Annexure P- 3) filed by the respondent seeking modification of rent in the order dated 27.11.2025 was allowed. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that once the rent has been assessed, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to reassess or modify the same.

2. The respondent has filed an appeal against the said order. During the pendency of the appeal, the learned Appellate Court, vide order dated 23.12.2025, stayed the operation of the order dated 27.11.2025, whereby the provisional rent had been assessed. It is contended that, on the one hand, the appeal was filed challenging the order of assessment of provisional rent passed by the Rent Controller, and on the other hand, an application seeking modification of the very same order was pursued before the Rent Controller without disclosing the fact that the operation of the order had already been stayed by the learned Appellate Court.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper-book carefully.

4. The rent petition was filed by the petitioner seeking ejectment of the respondent from the demised premises. In the petition, the petitioner ₹

specifically pleaded that the agreed annual rate of rent was 664/-, and one of the grounds for ejectment was the non-payment of rent with effect from January 2017. There was no dispute between the parties with regard to the rate of rent. However, while assessing the provisional rent, the learned Rent Controller inadvertently committed a clerical error by calculating the rent due ₹ ₹

at the rate of 664/- per month instead of 664/- per annum. As a result, the provisional assessment was based on an incorrect calculation. Upon an application moved by the respondent-tenant pointing out the said error, the learned Rent Controller corrected the clerical mistake and re-assessed the provisional rent in accordance with the correct and admitted rate of rent agreed between the parties.

5. The petition has been contested on the ground that the learned Appellate Court had stayed the proceedings vide order dated 23.12.2025. However, a perusal of the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, which has been placed on record, clearly shows that only the operation of the order dated 27.11.2025 was stayed for the time being. The proceedings before the learned Rent Controller were not stayed by the Appellate Authority. Learned Rent Controller has not given effect to the order dated 27.11.2025; rather, the learned Rent Controller has merely corrected a clerical mistake occurring in the assessment order. Such correction does not amount to a re- assessment of provisional rent. The impugned order is confined only to rectifying an apparent clerical and arithmetical error. It is a settled principle of law that every court or tribunal possesses incidental and inherent powers to correct clerical, typographical, or arithmetical mistakes in its orders to give effect to its true intention. Admittedly, the correction made by the learned Rent Controller is strictly in accordance with the rate of rent pleaded by the petitioner-landlord and admitted by the parties. Therefore, the action of the learned Rent Controller cannot be construed as a fresh or impermissible re-

assessment of rent, but merely as a lawful correction of an inadvertent error.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled position of law, no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller, as the same does not suffer from any illegality, perversity