JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The respondent-tenant had tenancy of one room, which according to Commissioner's report is measuring about 9ft. 2 inches x 11ft. 2 inches. The landlord instituted Small Cause Suit No.714 of 1982 on the ground under Section 21(1)(c) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") contending that petitioner had caused structural alteration in the building. 3. The tenant had raised a plea that whatever construction he has made is not on tenanted property but on the property which is not under the tenancy with respondent-landlord. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 17.9.1997 wherein it has noticed several constructions and alteration not only in the room under tenancy but even beyond that but there is no finding at all as to whether structural alteration in respect to tenanted property has resulted in diminishing its value or utility or to disfigure it. The Revisional Court has reversed judgment of Trial Court by means of impugned judgment on the ground that since landlord failed to prove alternation made in respect to tenanted property and therefore, suit had failed. 4. In my view, when there is no consideration by Trial Court that alternations in respect to tenanted property have diminished its value or utility or disfigured it, the suit could not have been decreed. Even otherwise, construction made outside tenanted property do not provide a ground for eviction from tenanted property under Section 20(2)(c) of Act, 1972. Substantial justice has been done by Revisional Court, since judgment of Trial Court was not sustainble in view of discussion made above. 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 order impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment. 5. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. 6. Dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.