Sudhir Agarwal,J. Called in revised. None appeared for the petitioner to press this writ petition. Sri Shashank Tripathi, Advocate is present representing respondent no.3. In the circumstances, I myself has gone through the record. 2. Writ petition is directed against order dated 23.7.2005 (Annexure X to writ petition) passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar whereby application of respondent no.3 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 allowed and order dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure XII to the writ petitioner) rejecting appeal of the petitioenr against aforesaid order. 3. 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. Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded which have not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record justifying interference. 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. Distt. 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. 4. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. 5. Dismissed. 6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. _______________