JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 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 Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. This is a landlord's writ petition. He instituted application for release of accommodation in question under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") on the ground that building in dispute is in dilapidated condition and, therefore, it need be released for demolition and re-construction. The application was dismissed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 19.08.1994 holding that building is not in dilapidated condition and the applicant has failed to prove his case. The aforesaid judgment has been confirmed by Lower Appellate Court by dismissing petitioner's appeal vide judgment dated 23.11.1998. 4. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts which could not be shown perverse in any manner. 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.