Sudhir Agarwal. J.— Sri K.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner filed an application for release of accommodation in question under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was dismissed by Prescribed Authority vide judgement and order dated 16.08.2000 and the said order has been confirmed in Rent Control Appeal No. 44 of 2000 by District Judge, Jhansi vide judgment dated 05.02.2004. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of both proceedings the original tenant, Sri Shyam Manohar died and his sons who were substituted are well settled individually, therefore, they cannot have any reason to continue to occupy the tenanted accommodation. 4. Though these facts are not to be taken into account at this stage but even if something is presumed for benefit of petitioner yet in order to get accommodation in question released, the petitioner has to show bona fide need and comparative hardship in his favour. On both these aforesaid grounds the courts below have recorded concurrent finding against petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner could not show or even substantiate any argument to point out any manifest error in this regard in the impugned judgements. 5. 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. 6. I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. Petition dismissed. _____________