Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Petitioner is a landlord. He filed suit for ejectment of respondent-tenant from premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of material alternation i.e. grounds under Section 20 (2) (a) and (b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1972'). He failed before both the Courts below inasmuch SCC Suit No. 10 of 1995 was dismissed by the Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 17.8.2002 and petitioner's SCC Revision No. 12 of 2002 was also dismissed by Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Firozabad by order dated 13.8.2004.
(2.) The Courts below have recorded findings that neither there is any default in payment of rent, nor material alternation of premises in terms of Section 20 (2) (b) of Act, 1972 could be proved by the petitioner. Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to show any manifest error in the judgments impugned in this writ petition warranting interference. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact 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 orders 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.
(3.) Dismissed.;