JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Deeba Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is landlord's writ petition, who filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") registered as P.A. Case No. 01 of 2004 for release of shop in dispute but the same has been rejected by Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 06.03.2006 on the ground that petitioner has other two shops vacant, in which, he can settle his son in the business and therefore, his need is neither bona fide nor genuine. This finding has been affirmed in appeal. On page 37 of the paper book, Prescribed Authority has said as under: ^^uxj ikfydk ds dj fu/kkZj.k ds vuqlkj nks nqdkus [kkyh gSA dj fu/kkZj.k dh lR; izfrfyfi dkxt la[;k 22x@50 i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA blesa nks nqdku [kkyh vafdr gSA ftlesa oknh vius iq= dks nqdku djk ldrk gSA** "As per the Nagar Palika tax assessment, two shops are lying vacant. True copy of the tax assessment being paper no. 22 C/50 is available on record. Two shops are mentioned therein as vacant which may be used by the plaintiff to engage his son in business." (English Translation by Court) 3. Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that paper no.22C/50 is a certified copy of municipal assessment of shop, which shows that the two shops are vacant. Concurrent findings have been recorded by Courts below which cannot be shown perverse or contrary to material available on record. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The scope of judicial review under Article 226/227 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. Dismiss. 6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.