JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rama Goyal Bansal, Advocate for respondent. 2. The petitioner is landlord. His application for release of shop in dispute filed 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") was rejected by Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 11.04.2002 and thereagainst petitioner's appeal has also been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Aligarh vide judgment and order dated 18.01.2007. 3. In para 18 onwards of the judgment of Prescribed Authority this Court finds that it has discussed in detail various false statements made on oath by filing inconsistent affidavits before courts below showing that petitioner had not come with clean hands and has not disclosed correct facts before court below but has tried to take advantage of false statements. In these facts and circumstances, both the courts below have found that need of landlord is not bona fide. 4. These findings have not been challenged in the entire writ petition and there is not even a whisper that these findings are incorrect or misreading. It is not the case of petitioner that any relevant evidence was ignored or any impermissible or irrelevant evidence was taken into account or there is any other perversity, legal or otherwise, in the judgments impugned in this petition. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere. 5. 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. 6. I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.