CMPM No.766/2007 in C.Rev No.66/2007 28.03.2008 Present: Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. CMPM No.766/2007 Heard. Delay condoned, for the reasons stated in the application. Application stands disposed of. Cr.Rev No.66/2007 Heard. It appears that the present petitioner occupied certain premises in a hotel but did not vacate the same. Proceedings were initiated against him before the appropriate authorities, under the provisions of H.P. Registration of Hotels and Travel Agent Act and an order was passed for his eviction. Appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking that the orders were illegal, as he was a tenant and not a lodger in the hotel. That suit was dismissed by Civil Court. Appeal filed against the decree of the Civil Court was dismissed by the District Judge. Regular Second Appeal was filed in this Court. The petitioner filed an affidavit in this Court wherein he gave an undertaking that he will be vacating the premises by 15th March, 2008. Respondent agreed to give time to the petitioner to vacate the premises by 15th March, 2008, in view of the aforesaid undertaking of the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed on the asking of the petitioner, because he had been given time till the aforesaid date to vacate the premises. Now, the petitioner seeks review of the order of this Court dismissing his appeal on his own asking. It is stated that when the affidavit containing the undertaking was filed in the Court, he was not …2… CMPM No.766/2007 in C.Rev No.66/2007 possessed of certain important documents, which had bearing on the matter in controversy. He has not given the description and the nature of those documents nor has he explained how the alleged documents have any bearing on the matter in controversy. Moreover, when the petitioner had himself given the undertaking voluntarily and acting on that undertaking the respondent agreed to give the petitioner the time upto 15th March, 2008 to vacate the premises, it does not lie in his mouth that the order of this Court dismissing the appeal calls of review. It appears that the present review petition is nothing but a futile attempt on the part of the present petitioner to back out from the undertaking given by him to the Court. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed. March 28, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.