Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Sri H.N.Sharma, counsel for the petitioner has sought adjournment on the ground of illness. The record shows that repeatedly this case has been sought to be adjourned at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground of illness, inasmuch as, on 8.11.2012, 30.11.2012 and 21.12.2012 the case was adjourned on account of request made on behalf of Sri H.N.Sharma, counsel for the petitioner on the ground of illeness. In the circumstances, I decline to accept request for adjournment and reject the same. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press the writ petition even the case has been called in revised. Sri Sri Prateek Sinha, counsel for the respondent is present on behalf of respondents No.3, 4 and 5. In the circumstances, I have perused the record. 3. Writ petition is directed against orders dated 17.02.2004 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kanpur Nagar whereby application filed by petitioner-landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") has been rejected and 11.03.2005 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) whereby appeal filed by petitioner has been adismissed by Appellate Court. 4. Having gone through the impugned orders 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 orders 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. _____________