JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, leaned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. The writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 11.9.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Varanasi allowing respondent-landlord's Rent Control Appeal No.60 of 1998 by setting aside Prescribed Authority's judgment and order dated 15.9.1998. 3. The respondent-landlord filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") for release of accommodation in question, which is a shop, on the ground of personal need. The application was rejected by Prescribed Authority but has been allowed by lower Appellate Court in favour of the tenant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the heirs of the landlord are adjusted in other business, profession etc. and therefore there was no genuine need but Appellate Court has committed patent error in allowing appeal of the respondent landlord. However, he could not state as to in what manner they were accommodated except of bare assertion that sons of landlord are already adjusted. Nothing substantial has been brought on record. Whenever a tenant takes a defence that sons of landlord, for whose benefit landlord seeks release of shop in question, are already engaged, onus lie on the tenant to prove this fact. In this case nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate this fact and hence it is rightly discarded by Appellate Court. 5. No other point has been argued. The Appellate Court has recorded finding regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of landlord and in absence of anything showing manifest error therein, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 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. 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. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.