JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri K.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for caveator-respondents. 2. It is submitted that once the petitioners have deposited entire rent and other dues as contemplated under Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"), the court below ought not to have passed a decree for ejectment merely for the reason that regular monthly rent was not paid by tenant regularly within the prescribed time. 3. A perusal of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 shows that it has used the word "may" enabling the court that in its discretion and in given circumstances, decree of ejectment may not be passed, if, the defaulted tenant has paid dues, as mentioned in Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 on the first date of hearing of suit but the tenant thereafter has continued to commit default in payment of monthly rent and has violated requirement of Order XV Rule 5(2) C.P.C. On this aspect, learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that authorities and precedents are otherwise and various authorities cited and referred to in the Revisional Court's judgment actually operate against him. 4. Besides, there is one more aspect that petitioner no. 1's son has already acquired another house in the same city and for this reason also by way of proviso to Section 20(4), they are not entitled for any benefit of sub-section (4). On this aspect also there is no challenge to the findings recorded by Revisional Court. 5. Since no manifest error has been pointed out in the impugned Revisional Court's judgment dated 20.10.2012, I find no reason to interfere in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. 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. 7. I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.