JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Petitioner was issued notice to engage another counsel pursuant to Court's order dated 02.3.2009. Office report dated 30.10.2012 shows that notice sent by registered post on 04.03.2009 has neither been received back nor acknowledgment is received. Service is deemed sufficient. 2. Called in revised. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition. Sri K.K.Tripathi, Advocate is present for the respondents. In the circumstances, I have perused the record. 3. Writ petition is directed against order dated 27.04.2005 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") declaring vacancy in portion of disputed accommodation i.e. House No.2/326, Nawabganj, Kanpur Nagar. 4. Having gone through the impugned order as also pleadings and grounds taken in writ petition, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned in this writ petition warranting interference. Findings of fact have been recorded which have not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere. The scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Writ-A No.11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others) 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. 5. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. 6. Dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.