Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner stated that he has no instructions in the matter. Neither any other counsel has appeared nor petitioner is present, though the case has been called in revised. In the circumstances, I have perused the record.
(2.) Writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.10.2001 (Annexure 15 to writ petition) passed by Addl. District Judge, Court No. 10, Gorakhpur dismissing Rent Appeal No. 30 of 2000 filed by petitioner against judgment and order dated 1.11.2000 passed by Prescribed Authority/Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur in P.A. Case No. 52 of 1997 dismissing petitioner's application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1972').
(3.) Having gone through the impugned order as also pleadings and grounds taken in writ petition, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in this writ petition warranting interference. Findings of fact have been recorded which have not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record justifying interference. The scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Writ-A No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad v. 16th Addl. Distt. Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others) decided on 30.7.2012 . There is nothing which may justify judicial review of order impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment.;