Sudhir Agarwal, J.:— Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The Trial Court vide order dated 18.11.2000 has allowed respondent's application filed under Section 21(1)(b) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation o Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") directing petitioners to vacate and hand over possession of premises in question to the plain tiff-respondent-landlord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and appellate order dated 11.9.2002 passed by District Judge, Kanpur dismissing petitioners' appeals. There were two appeals before the District Judge but both were filed by petitioners-tenants against the same judgment of the Trial Court dated 18.11.2000. 3. Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that paras 10 are 11 of release application shows that respondent - landlord also sought relief for release of accommodation in question under Section 21 (1)(a) of Act, 1972 though the application has been decided under Section 21(1)(b) of Act, 1972. Since the application was filed within three years after the date of purchase without complying with the requirement of proviso to Section 21 (1)(a), the application was not maintainable. 4. 1 do not find any force in the submission. 5. Paras 10 and 11 of the application read as under: "10. That since the present petition is for demolition of the entire building and reconstruction, therefore, submission of personal requirement at present, though the petitioner genuinely and bonafidely needs additional accommodation; at present in possession is insufficient, and comparative hardship of the respective parties is not made in the petition. The building needs demolition and is to be reconstructed. 11. That the need of the petitioner for demolition of the building and new construction in place of it is bonafide. The petition is not tainted with any oblique motive or malafide intention. The petitioner undertakes and assures that after reconstruction of the house, he will use and occupy it for his and his family residence and will not let out to any person on any amount of rent or in any other manner whatsoever." 6. The petition is not tainted with any oblique motive or malafide intention. The petitioner undertakes and assures that after reconstruction of the house, he will use and occupy it for his and his family residence and will not let out to any person on any amount of rent or in any other manner whatsoever." 6. A bare reading thereof shows that though landlord said that accommodation available to him is insufficient yet ha has not propounded his case on the ground of personal need since he had purchased the building in question for its demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, in substance and for all purposes the aforesaid avements do not constitute to make out a case under Section 21 (1)(a) of Act, 1972. An application has to be read in its entirety and having gone through the same I find that it was an application filed under Section 21 (1)(b) of Act, 1972 for demolition and reconstruction and not on the ground of personal need. The landlord himself has stated that despite the fact that accommodation available to him is insufficient but he has not founded his application on that ground but has proceeded to make out a case under Section 21 (1)(b) of Act, 1972. It is how both the Courts below have also construed, understood and adjudicated the matter and I am in entire agreement thereto. 7. No other argument has been advanced. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any apparent, error in the two judgments under challenge warranting interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. 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. 9. Dismissed. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Petition dismissed. _____________