JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on recall application. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of finally. 2. Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate for petitioner and perused the record. 3. The petitioner, Managing Committee of the property in question which is a Wakf, filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") claiming that in the Mosque they are running Madarsa also and for residential purpose of Teachers of Madarsa the accommodation in question which is in possession of respondent-tenant is required and, therefore, same be released in favour of petitioner. 4. The Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 03.05.1983 rejected application holding that applicant has failed to show any bona fide need, and comparative hardship also does not lie in his favour and petitioner's appeal has also been dismissed by judgment dated 10.08.1989 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. 5. The Lower Appellate court while confirming findings of Trial court has further said as under: "The need of the teachers, therefore is shown to be the need of the applicant in respect of the disputed premises. At this juncture it may be mentioned that the teachers for whom the disputed accommodation is required for residence at the Kanpur City itself and one of them is residing in the Masjid itself, and therefore, unless it is shown that the teachers live such at a long distance and that they cannot impart education with all zeal and courage after traveling a very long distance, the need cannot be said to be genuine and bona fide." 6. It has also observed that no evidence has been placed on record to show that Teachers were employed with a condition of providing residential accommodation at Madarsa itself and petitioner was under an obligation to provide accommodation to such Teachers. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim set up by petitioner with regard to need has not been correctly appreciated by courts below. 8. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim set up by petitioner with regard to need has not been correctly appreciated by courts below. 8. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. Admittedly, it is not a case where personal need was set up by landlord in respect of himself or any member of his family or any person for whose benefit he held accommodation. Here it is claimed to be a public charitable trust and for the object of trust the accommodation was required to be released. In the case in hand, it is said to be a Wakf of which one of the objective was to provide religious education. Without looking into the question, whether there was any such written condition of Wakf, assuming what petitioner said to be correct, I find that providing education does not include necessarily within its ambit the requirement of private residential accommodation to the teaching staff unless it is shown that without such provision the basic object cannot be fulfilled. For example if the institution would have been running at some distant isolated area, the accommodation for staff is necessary but when institution itself is situate in the heart of city, such requirement cannot be assumed, unless proved. 9. I, therefore, find no factual, legal or otherwise error in the impugned judgments warranting interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 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 Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, 2013(2) AWC 2168. 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. 10. I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.