JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, Actg. C. J.—This revision petition arises out of a petition filed by the petitioner-landlord (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord") for the eviction of the respondent-tenant (hereinafter referred to as "the tentant") under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act 1971. A few facts relevant to decide this revision petition may b^ stated The" landlord filed an application for the eviction of the tenant as referred to above. The plea of the landlord was that the respondent be evicted from the premises as he had failed to pay rent with effect from August, 1982 to March, 1983 in respect of the premises in dispute. The tenant, inter alia however, had contended that the amount at the rate of Rs. 60 per can year for the repairs of the premises incurred by him, for the last about ten years be adjusted towards the rent. J 2. The only point that has been stressed on behalf of the landlord is that since the tenant was in arrears of rent, he was liable to be evicted The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 60 per month from August 82 to March 31, 1983 along with interest and costs, which were assessed at Rs. 50 and interest at the rate of six per cent per annum It was, however, ordered that in case this amount alongwith interest and costs was paid within thirty days the landlord will not be entitled to get the order of eviction executed. 3. It is not disputed that the tenant deposited a sum of Rs 555 in compliance with the order of the Rent Controller, to avoid his eviction The plea of the landlord is that since the tenant had failed to pay the full amount, he was liable to be evicted. It is emphasized by Mr Goel learned Counsel for the landlord, that the amount deposited by the "tenant was short of Rs. 6.69 paise though he had deposited a sum of Rs 555 On this account it is contended that the tenant cannot avoid his eviction. 4. It is emphasized by Mr Goel learned Counsel for the landlord, that the amount deposited by the "tenant was short of Rs. 6.69 paise though he had deposited a sum of Rs 555 On this account it is contended that the tenant cannot avoid his eviction. 4. It may be noticed that after the conditional order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller, the tenant filed two separate applications under section 152 and Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Code to the effect that since the rent for the month of March, 1983 had not become due to the landlord when the petition for eviction was filed, he was not liable to pay the same and that the amount of rent for the month of March 1983 deserved to be deducted from the arrears of rent assessed in the eviction petition. The Rent Controller entertained the applications and amended the order to the effect that the rent payable by the tenant was from August 1 1982 to February 28, 1983 at the rate of Rs. 60 per month alongwith interest and costs assessed at Rs. 50. 5. In this revision petition the landlord has challenged the amended order. It cannot be disputed that in case the rent for the month of March, 1983 is excluded, the question of shotage of deposit would be rebundant since the shortage is stated to be of only Rs.69 paise. The learned Counsel for the landlord has contended that the Rent Controller was not competent to amend the original eviction order. It is also pointed out by him that even if the tender was short by an insignificant amount, the tenant was liable to be evicted. The learned Counsel has referred to certain decisions but it is not necessary to refer to them. 6. It may be noticed that the Urban Rent Control Act is a social legislation to safeguard the legitimate rights of tenants. The tenant in the case in hand who appeared in person urged that he is running a small tailoring shop in the premises and is thereby earning his livelihood. According to him, he is a poor person and is not in a position to get any other premises. He has asserted that he had effected repairs to the premises and was under the belief that the expenses incurred by him would be adjusted towards the rent payable by him. According to him, he is a poor person and is not in a position to get any other premises. He has asserted that he had effected repairs to the premises and was under the belief that the expenses incurred by him would be adjusted towards the rent payable by him. It is submitted by him that he deposited the amount as calculated and was under the impression that the full amount had been paid by him till the month of March, 1983. It is also pointed out that since the rent for the month of March, 1983 had not fallen due, he filed applications for the amendment of the original order that were allowed. 7. I have perused the record and have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the landlord. I am of the view that accidental slip or omission in an order can be rectified in the interest of justice. The Rent Controller after considering the matter was fully justified to amend the original order to determine the actual arrears of rent due from the tenant. It may also be noticed that the alleged shortage of tender, if any, was of an insignificant amount. The tenant has urged that even if there was any mistake in calculating the rent, it was due to a mistake which can be termed as accidental slip or omission. 8. It is not disputed that an amount of Rs. 555 towards the arrears of rent was deposited by the tenant within time. The shortage in if any, alleged, is confined to Rs. 6.69 paise. It can, however, be hardly believed that in case he could deposit a sum of Rs. 555 towards the arrears of rent, it was not possible for him to make the deficiency of Rs. 6.69 paise. Under the circumstances, it can reasonably be inferred that the tenant was under the genuine belief that full arrears of rent had been deposited by him. Moreover, it can hardly be believed that the tenant could cause the shortage of this insignificant amount at the risk of his eviction from the premises in dispute. It is a matter of common knowledge that due to increasing population, it has become a serious problem to get any accommodation at a reasonable rate of rent. Moreover, it can hardly be believed that the tenant could cause the shortage of this insignificant amount at the risk of his eviction from the premises in dispute. It is a matter of common knowledge that due to increasing population, it has become a serious problem to get any accommodation at a reasonable rate of rent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the eviction of the tenant on the aforesaid grounds is not justified. 9. While affirming the impugned order, the revision petition is summarily dismissed. Revision dismissed.