JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.11.2004 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bijnor (hereinafter referred to as the "RCEO") under Section 12(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") declaring deemed vacancy in the accommodation in question which is a shop. 2. It appears that landlord filed an application before RCEO stating that tenant, Sri Jaichand Jain who was doing business of chemist and running shop in the disputed building has already shifted his business elsewhere and the aforesaid shop is lying vacant for several years. The RCEO sought report from the Inspector who visited the premises on 11.08.2003, submitted report that the shop is lying closed for last four years and no business is being carrying on therein. After the notices were issued, petitioner no. 1 appeared before RCEO and claimed that he has now started business of soap and detergent in the shop in question. In support thereof he filed an affidavit dated 21.09.2004 of one Sri Ram Narain Rastogi but said affidavit was contradicted by the deponent himself by filing a subsequent affidavit dated 06.10.2004 disowning and disapproving his earlier affidavit. Admittedly no other evidence has been placed either before RCEO or before this Court to demonstrate or even suggest that any business is being carried on by petitioners in the shop in question. 3. In these facts and circumstances, in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4. 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 order impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment. 5. I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.