JUDGMENT 1. - Heard petitioner Brijmohan, in-person, on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 22 days delay in filing the review petition as well as on the review petition also. 2. The petitioner has filed this review petition for review of the order dated 6.11.2006 passed by this Court, whereby the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC filed by the tenant-petitioner was dismissed as not pressed, and time was granted to him to vacate the rented premises up-to 31st of December, 2007. 3. The petitioner, while referring Para 7 of the review petition, contended that he did not give any instruction to his counsel Shri Himmat Singh for not pressing the appeal on merits and to seek time to vacate the rented premises, but his counsel, at his own, did not press the appeal on merits and prayed for grant of time and the request of his counsel was allowed by this Court and second appeal was dismissed as not pressed and time to vacate the premises was granted. Therefore, the order dated 6.11.2006 may be reviewed/recalled and second appeal be heard on merits. 4. It is relevant to mention that a suit for eviction in respect of rented premises was filed against the tenant-petitioner, which was decreed by both the courts below on the ground of personal bona-fide necessity and, being aggrieved with the same, the second appeal was listed before this court on 15.9.2006 and the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant sought time to seek instructions in the matter from the.. appellant and on his request time prayed for was allowed and the second appeal was kept for 20.9.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant again sought time on 20.9.2006, which was again granted and the case was fixed for 6.10.2006. The case was again adjourned for 11.10.2006 and 31.10.2006 and then thereafter the second appeal was listed on 6.11.2006 and on that date the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-appellant, on the instructions of defendant-appellant, contended that he does not press the second appeal on merits and reasonable time to vacate the premises may be granted to him. The case was again adjourned for 11.10.2006 and 31.10.2006 and then thereafter the second appeal was listed on 6.11.2006 and on that date the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-appellant, on the instructions of defendant-appellant, contended that he does not press the second appeal on merits and reasonable time to vacate the premises may be granted to him. The counsel for the respondent agreed to grant time up-to 31st of December, 2007, and on the basis of the consensus arrived at in between both the parties, a consent order was passed on 6.11.2006, which is sought to be reviewed in this review petition. 5. In view of the above, it is clear that the counsel for the petitioner- appellant sought time to seek instructions from his client to make a prayer for grant of time to vacate the rented premises in view of the limited scope of second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below, and the appellant appears to have given instructions to his counsel, may be on his advise, and now the present review petition has been filed contending that he did not give any instructions to his counsel. The dispute, if at all, appears to be in between the petitioner and his counsel, but so far as the order sought to be reviewed is concerned, I do not find any error apparent on the face of it so as to entertain the review petition. 6. The petitioner has also not explained the delay of 22 days made in filing the review petition satisfactorily so as to condone the same. 7. Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the review petition, both, are dismissed.Review Petition and Application for Condonation of Delay both dismissed. *******