- (1.) Called in revised. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition. Sri Anuj Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent is present. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.
(2.) The petitioner-landlord, whose release application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"), was dismissed by Prescribed Authority vide order dated 13.01.1997 and the said judgment has been confirmed in appeal vide judgment dated 08.03.2007 has come to this Court challenging the aforesaid two orders.
(3.) Having gone through the impugned orders as also pleadings and grounds taken in writ petition, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned in this writ petition warranting interference. Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded which have not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record. The scope of judicial review under 226/227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Writ-A No.11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Addl. District 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.;