Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Called in revised. None appeared on behalf of petitioners to press this writ petition though names of Sri V.K. Jaiswal and Ravindra Singh are shown in the cause list as counsels for petitioners. However, Sri Anuj Agarwal, holding brief of Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondents is present. In the above circumstances, I have perused the record.
(2.) Writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.2.2000 (Annexure 5 to writ petition) passed by First Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad allowing appeal of respondent-tenant, and, by setting aside Prescribed Authority's order dated 6.12.1995 the Appellate Court has dismissed petitioner's application filed under Section 21 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. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere. 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. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere.;