Sudhir Agarwal, J.— Heard Sri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The writ petition is directed against order dated 20th November, 2003 whereby tenant's appeal has been allowed by lower Appellate Court and release application of petitioner landlord has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner .submitted that view taken by lower Appellate Court on technical aspect that all legal heirs in respect to shop in question which was in joint tenancy, were not impleaded or that co-landlord were not impleaded therefore release application was incompetent, is illegal, incorrect and therefore the impugned appellate order cannot sustain. 4. Even if on the aforesaid two aspects view taken by lower Appellate Court may not be strictly in accordance with law, the fact remains that lower Appellate Court has also found that neither need of petitioner-landlord was genuine nor comparative hardship lie in her favour. It has recorded a finding of fact that landlord had already purchased another shop in Shiv Sahai Market which could have been utilized for the business, which the petitioner claim to shift from the existing shop in which it is already running by her husband but instead of that the said shop was let out to another person and this shows that alleged need of landlord is neither genuine nor bona fide. Similarly on the question of comparative hardship also it has recorded a finding of fact against petitioner which learned counsel for the petitioner could not show perverse or contrary to record.? The scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar & Ors.), decided on 30.7.2012 reported in 2012 (3) ARC 339 . 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. 5. In the circumstances, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order, ultimately coming to the conclusion that release application of the petitioner being devoid of merit, on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship, the same deserve to be dismissed and hence the impugned appellate order warrants no interference. 6. Dismissed. 7. 6. Dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Petition dismsised. _____________