Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The landlord is before this court impugning the order dated 5.3.2005, passed by the Rent Controller, whereby while rejecting the application filed by the tenant for correction of the order dated 17.3.2004 assessing the provisional rent, it had granted opportunity to the tenant to tender the rent in accordance with the order passed earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord submitted that the landlord filed the eviction petition on 17.2.1998, in which eviction order was passed on 5.2.2002 on account of non-payment of rent. In appeal, the matter was remanded back. After remand, vide order dated 17.3.2004, the rent was assessed and 23.3.2004 was fixed as the date for tendering the rent. On that date, the matter was adjourned to 24.3.2004 on the request of the tenant. On that date, a sum of Rs. 3,150/- was tendered by the tenant, which was accepted by the landlord under protest. On 26.4.2004, the landlord filed application for directing eviction of the tenant on account of non-payment of the provisional rent assessed. In reply dated 30.7.2004, the stand of the tenant was that the amount written in the order passed by the court was different than what was pronounced in court. The aforesaid application is still pending. However, an application dated 30.7.2004 was filed by the tenant for correction of the order dated 17.3.2004 for bringing the same in consonance with the verbal order passed in court and for correcting the provisional rent assessed. After considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the court below rejected the same vide impugned order dated 5.3.2005. The aforesaid order is impugned by the landlord in the present petition to the extent further time was granted by the court to the tenant for tendering the rent. 2. Learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below granting further time to the tenant for tendering the rent suffers from patent illegality. There was no prayer made by the tenant in the application for extension of time once his application for correction of the order was dismissed. The order passed by the court is beyond the prayer made, which otherwise also could not be granted. In fact, it amounts to review of the order. The order dated 17.3.2004 was not challenged on merits. Only the correction was sought. The order passed by the court is beyond the prayer made, which otherwise also could not be granted. In fact, it amounts to review of the order. The order dated 17.3.2004 was not challenged on merits. Only the correction was sought. In terms of settled law, on account of non-payment of provisional rent assessed, the eviction followed. In fact, the entire effort of the tenant was to scandalise the court, as the plea sought to be raised was that the written order was different than what was pronounced in court. He further submitted that in case such a course is permitted to be adopted by the tenants, it can lead to misuse of process of court by unscrupulous tenant, as in every case where the tenant is not able to tender the provisional rent assessed, he may file such a frivolous application and gain time, which is not in the spirit of law laid down. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the tenant submitted that the stand of the tenant from the very beginning was that the agreed rent was Rs. 500/- per month. Initially, the eviction order was passed against the tenant, which was set aside in appeal. Vide order dated 5.2.2002, the rent was held to be Rs. 500/- per month. However, when the provisional rent was assessed vide order dated 17.3.2004, the same was assessed at Rs. 1,400/- per month. When the correct amount of arrears was tendered, the landlord accepted the same under protest by saying that the rent should have been tendered @ Rs. 1,400/- per month. In reply to the application filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant on account of non-payment of the provisional rent assessed, the application for correction was filed simultaneously. The intention of the tenant was not to avoid payment, rather, was to pay the correct amount of rent. The prayer in the application was not to seek extension of time, rather, for correction in the order. The extension granted by the court was consequential as the application for correction was dismissed. The order dated 17.3.2004 assessing provisional rent, being non-speaking, the matter may be remitted back for assessing provisional rent. 4. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the tenant, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that judicial record is presumed to be correct. The order dated 17.3.2004 assessing provisional rent, being non-speaking, the matter may be remitted back for assessing provisional rent. 4. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the tenant, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that judicial record is presumed to be correct. The earlier order dated 5.2.2002 assessing rent @ Rs. 500/- per month was set aside by the appellate authority, hence, to place reliance thereupon is totally misconceived. In fact, the effort of the tenant was to challenge the order assessing provisional rent under the garb of correction of order when he had defaulted in tendering the provisional rent assessed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 6. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute, which was ordered on 5.2.2002. The order was challenged by the tenant in appeal. The appellate authority, while setting aside the findings recorded by the Rent Controller, which included determination of rate of rent, remitted the matter back to the Rent Controller for fresh decision in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, (2002-2) 131 P.L.R. 370. When the matter was remitted back, it was to be decided afresh and the provisional rent was to be assessed. Vide order dated 17.3.2004, the Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent @ Rs. 1,400/- per month and fixed 23.3.2004 as the date for tendering the same. On that date, a request was made that the case be taken up for tendering the rent after lunch as the counsel was busy in some other court. As the Presiding Officer was to proceed on leave after lunch, the case was fixed for 24.3.2004 for tendering the rent. On that date, the tenant tendered total sum of Rs. 3,150/- in court for payment to the landlord claiming that the rent was Rs. 500/- per month, which was accepted by the landlord under protest stating that the tender was not valid and also short. 7. On 26.4.2004, application was filed by the landlord for passing the order of eviction on account of failure of the tenant to comply with the order dated 17.3.2004 as the provisional rent assessed had not been tendered. 500/- per month, which was accepted by the landlord under protest stating that the tender was not valid and also short. 7. On 26.4.2004, application was filed by the landlord for passing the order of eviction on account of failure of the tenant to comply with the order dated 17.3.2004 as the provisional rent assessed had not been tendered. The tenant sought time to file reply to the aforesaid application and it was only on 30.7.2004 that reply to the application was filed along with an application under Section 152 CPC for correction of the order dated 17.3.2004. It was stated in the application that the order was pronounced in court, which was noted down and in terms thereof, the rent was tendered. The correction was sought as the written order was allegedly not in conformity with what was pronounced in court. After considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the learned court below rejected the application for correction filed by the tenant observing that there was no mistake in the order assessing the provisional rent @ Rs. 1,400/- per month, as the contention of the tenant to the effect that the rent was Rs. 500/- per month has been specifically noticed. The entire exercise of the tenant in the present case does not seem to be bonafide for the reason that after the landlord filed application seeking eviction of the tenant on account of non-payment of the provisional rent, he had sought time for filing reply to the application. The specific pleaded case of the landlord in the application was that the rent was assessed by the court @ Rs. 1,400/- per month, but still the tenant instead of tendering the rent at the same rate showing his bonafide waited for 4-1/2 months and then filed reply to the application and simultaneously filed application for correction of the order. By way of that application, the effort was to challenge the order on merits. The same could be done only in a higher court. If such a course is permitted to be adopted by the tenant, the process of court can very well be misused as in every case where the tenant does not have any money to tender the provisional rent assessed, he may file any such frivolous application scandalising the court and then seek further time after dismissal of that application. If such a course is permitted to be adopted by the tenant, the process of court can very well be misused as in every case where the tenant does not have any money to tender the provisional rent assessed, he may file any such frivolous application scandalising the court and then seek further time after dismissal of that application. Such a course cannot be permitted. 8. The contention raised by learned counsel for the tenant that the order assessing provisional rent being non-speaking, the matter be remitted back is merely to be noticed and rejected for the reason that the present petition has been filed by the landlord. The order assessing the provisional rent is not impugned before this court. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the court below granting further time to the tenant for tendering the balance rent is set aside.