Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Called in revised. None appeared on behalf of petitioners to press this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel and Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Advocate, are present for respondents. I have perused the record.
(2.) Writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.3.2001 passed by IX Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar allowing Rent Appeal No. 37 of 2000 and setting aside Trial Court's order dated 15.2.2000; passed in Rent Case No. 48 of 1981 allowing 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.;