JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J.: - Order dated 29.8.2011 having been recalled vide order of date passed on Restoration Application, the writ petition is restored to its original number. As requested by learned counsels for parties, I proceed to decide this matter finally at this stage. 2. Heard Sri H.M.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 3. This writ petition is directed against order dated 21.6.2004 passed by Deputy Collector/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Fatehpur (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") declaring vacancy in house No.310 in respect to accommodation, which was in possession of petitioners on the ground that they were earlier in occupation of disputed accommodation but since they have already got their own houses constructed, hence there is a deemed vacancy in the said accommodation. The aforesaid order of RCEO has been confirmed by Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Fatehpur by dismissing petitioner's rent revision no.2 of 2004 vide judgment dated 1.9.2007. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that accommodation in question is exempted from application of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") under Section 2(b) hence the impugned orders are totally without jurisdiction. 5. However, vacancy in respect to disputed accommodation has been declared by RCEO by referring to Section 12(3) of Act, 1972 on the ground that petitioners, who were earlier occupant of accommodation in question, have got their own house constructed and on the correctness of these findings, no issue has been raised before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any averment in the entire writ petition that this part of findings recorded by RCEO and confirmed by Revisional Court is perverse or contrary to record. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any averment in the entire writ petition that this part of findings recorded by RCEO and confirmed by Revisional Court is perverse or contrary to record. I may refer to the findings recorded by RCEO in this regard: ^^;g rF; fufoZokfnr gS fd Hkou la[;k&310 esa t;pUnz iq= lqUnj] d`".k dqekj iq= t;pUnz] egsUnz iky flag iq= pUnziky flag] nqxkZ izlkn] jes'k pUnz o Jherh f'ko nsoh iRuh lwjt dk v/;klu iwoZ esa FkkA fdUrq bu yksxksa ds futh edku ftudk mYys[k Åij fd;k tk pqdk gS] gks tkus ds dkj.k bu yksxksa us bl edku ls viuk lkeku gVk fy;k gS vkSj buds }kjk rkyk yxk jD[kk x;k gSA bl izdkj jsUV dUV~ksy vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&12 dh mi/kkjk&3 esa fn;s x;s izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ;g yksx bl edku ij u rks vkokflr gS vkSj u gh budk dksbZ lkeku gSA rkyk yxk jD[kk gS vkSj bldk mi;ksx le;= ij bu yksxksa }kjk f'kdeh fdjk;snkj j[k dj Hkou dk nq: i;ksx fd;k tk jgk gSA vr,o Hkou la[;k&310 dks ,rn~}kjk fjDr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA** 6. Now coming to the question, whether house in dispute is exempted under Section 2(b) of Act, 1972, I find that this question has already been looked into by this Court in earlier two writ petitions no.9046 of 2010 (Manaswi Tiwari Vs. Krishna Kumar & Ors.) and Writ Petition No.13513 of 2010 (Vinod Kumar Maurya Vs. Up-Ziladhikari/Rent Control & Eviction Officer & Ors.) decided on 17.1.2013 wherein it has been noticed that property in dispute was purchased by one Manaswi Tiwari from the trust namely Baldev Prasad Junior High School. That being so, it ceased to be a property of trust so as to justify exemption under Section 2(b) of Act, 1972. 7. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the submission that accommodation in dispute is exempted under Section 2(b) of Act, 1972. 8. No other argument has been advanced. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any error apparent on the face of record in 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. 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. 10. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. 11. Dismissed. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.