Sudhir Agarwal, J. — It is a tenants' writ petition. The landlord instituted SCC Suit No. 82 of 2002 for eviction of Sri Mohd. Basheer, tenant (now deceased and substituted by. legal heirs, i.e., petitioners) on the ground of default in payment of rent, i.e., a ground under Section 20(2)(a) of UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1.972"). 2. The tenants raised a dispute regarding rate of rent and claimed that it was actually Rs. 1 6/- and not Rs. 22/-, as claimed by landlord. The Trial Court recorded a finding of fact about rate of rent and found that it was Rs. 22/-. The said finding has been confirmed by Revisional Court also. The suit has been decreed by Trial Court vide order dated 01.05.2006 and petitioners' Revision No. 353 of 2006 has been dismissed vide judgment dated 30.10.2012. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that rate of rent was actually Rs. 16/- and the findings recorded by courts below are incorrect. 4. In para 13 and 14 of Revisional Court's order dated 30. 10.201 2, it has said as under: @ Hindi @ "The opposite party/plaintiff has filed counter foils of the rent receipts of the earlier owner, receipt no. 5 whereof in its tenant's column bears the signature of Mohd. Basheer. In his cross examination, Mohd. Basheer has as D.W. 1 identified his signature. This receipt dated 08.02.1983 has been issued by Maqsood Ahmad. Not only this, other receipts 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 22 and 26 of this receipt book also bear the signature made by the revisionist/defendant in Urdu in that very manner. 14. From the oral and documentary available on record it is proved that the learned Small Causes Judge has correctly inferred that the revisionist/de fendant is a tenant with an obligation to make payment to the opposite party/plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 22 par month, not at the rate of Rs. 16 per month, as stated by him. The court below has not made any factual or legal error in relying open this receipt." (English translation by the Court) 5. The aforesaid finding has not been shown perverse or manifestly erroneous so as to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
16 per month, as stated by him. The court below has not made any factual or legal error in relying open this receipt." (English translation by the Court) 5. The aforesaid finding has not been shown perverse or manifestly erroneous so as to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 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 judg ment. 6.1, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. Petition dismissed. _____________