Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Shahid Ali Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21.05.2011 passed by Judge Small Cause Court, Aligarh allowing SCC Suit No. 16 of 1992 filed by respondents seeking eviction and recovery of rent from petitioner. The trial court decreed the suit and revisional court by means of impugned revisional order dated 05.03.2012 has dismissed the revision affirming trial court's judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents were actually not the landlords and this plea was specifically taken by petitioner in his written statement but the courts below have wrongly held that respondents were landlords and there was relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner-tenant and respondents-landlords. 4. These are the findings of facts recorded by court below and in absence of anything to demonstrate the same to be perverse or contrary to record or otherwise illegal, no interference is warranted in the concurrent findings of facts. 5. It is further contended that the petitioner on his own handed over possession to deceased landlord's nephew (sister's son) and he was not made party, therefore, the decree of eviction against petitioner is illegal. 6. On this aspect also the courts below have considered the matter and have recorded concurrent finding that so long as vacant possession is not handed over to landlord, the person who was occupying the premises with tenancy right, is liable for decree of eviction and I find no perversity or illegality in the aforesaid view taken by courts below. The scope of judicial review in these matter under Article 226/227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this court in Writ Petition No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others), decided on 30.07.2012. 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. 7. No other argument has been advansed. 8. I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. _