JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J.: - Pursuant to this Court's order dated 23.4.2014, Supplementary Affidavit has been filed today in the Court. The same be taken on record. 2. Heard Sri B.C. Rai, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for respondents. 3. This is tenant's writ petition who has lost from both the Courts below. Respondent-landlord filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ?Act, 1972?) seeking release of accommodation in question, registered as U.B. Case No. 4 of 2009 which was allowed by Prescribed Authority/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja (Bulandshahar) by order dated 3.12.2011 directing the petitioner to vacate the accommodation in question and hand over vacant possession to landlord within thirty days. Petitioner challenged the said order before Appellate Court but Additional District judge, Court No. 7, Bulandshahar, dismissed petitioner's Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 2012 vide order dated 3.1.2014 affirming the release order dated 3.12.2011 passed by Prescribed Authority. 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 justifying interference. The scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Addl. Distt. Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others 2013 (2) AWC 2168. 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. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere. 5. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. 6 Dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.