Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents-landlord.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent-landlord had filed five different release applications for five different accommodation against five different tenants and in one of the release application which was filed against the petitioner, the petitioner had filed his written statement but the written statement filed by another tenant namely, Rajiv Gupta and his accommodation number was considered while deciding the release application of the petitioner and not the written statement which was filed by the petitioner against the release application. It is thus contended that the orders impugned passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained inasmuch as the petitioner's written statement has not been consider but the written statement filed by another tenant Rajiv Gupta has been taken into consideration.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents states that the aforesaid error is only typing error. Learned counsel further contends that the matter may be remanded for rectification of the error within the time stipulated by this Court.;