Sudhir Agarwal, J.:— Heard Sri Rohan Gupta, Advocate, holding brief of Sri R. N. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.4.2005 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhansi allowing Release Application of respondent-landlord i. e. P. A. Case No. 20 of 2000 filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") and releasing house no. 96 situated at Bara Gaon Gate, Jhansi; and the Appellate Order dated 10.5.2006 dismissing petitioner's appeal. 3. It is contended that the need of respondent-landlord was not genuine, and both the Courts below have recorded findings in her favour which is perverse and incorrect. 4. It is evident from record that the question of genuine and bona fide need of landlord-respondent has been considered by both the Courts below and it has been, observed that house in question was purchased by landlord on 9. 10. 1997 for use of landlord. Petitioner is tenant in the aforesaid house and it was said that petitioner and his wife, both, have been transferred outside Jhansi. Petitioner sought to disown claim of respondent-landlord on the ground that she possesses number of other houses but both the Courts below have recorded findings that no evidence could be produced in support of the above contention. Before this Court also nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the aforesaid contention. The Courts below have also found that petitioner's wife was transferred to Lalitpur and nothing has been placed on record to disprove this fact. The purchase of house for the benefit of landlord has been found to be genuine and need of landlord has been found bona fide. On the question of comparative hardship also concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by both the Courts below in favour of landlord. 5. Since both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts and the aforesaid findings having not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record, I do not find any reason to interfere in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of Constitution. 5. Since both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts and the aforesaid findings having not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record, I do not find any reason to interfere in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of Constitution. The scope of judicial review 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 Addl. Distt. Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others) decided on\ 30.7.2012 (reported in 2012 (3) ARC 339 . There is nothing which may justify judiciall review of order impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment. 6. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. Dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. _____________