JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard Sri S.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the landlord-respondents and perused the record. 2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.3.2013 passed in Rent Case No. 11/2011 by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/ACMM, Court No. 9, Kanpur and the order dated 29.3.2018 passed in Rent Appeal No. 31/2013 by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Kanpur Nagar. 3. At the very outset, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on 15.7.2018 in execution proceedings possession of the premises in question has already been handed over by the tenant -petitioner and as such the present petition has become infructuous. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter has not become infructuous and may be taken up for hearing on merits. 5. In the opinion of the Court, once the possession of the premises in question has been handed over in the execution proceedings, there is extremely limited scope of interference in such matters. It is settled law that under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India scope of interference in the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below is very limited. Once the possession has already been handed over in execution proceedings, scope of interference is further reduced and can only be made in the extremely rare cases involving jurisdictional issue affecting the very jurisdiction of the Court. A reference may be made in this regard to a judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Hameed Kunju v. Nazim, (2017) 8 SCC 611 , paragraphs 28 and 29 whereof is quoted as under: “28. The High Court should have appreciated the undisputed fact that the eviction decree had stood executed and possession was already delivered to the appellant of all the suit shops including the shop in possession of the respondent in accordance with provisions of Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code. It should also have been appreciated that seven tenants had not pursued their case against the same eviction decree and allowed the appellant to obtain possession of the suit shops. Whereas it was only the respondent who had raised the frivolous pleas against such action in these proceedings. 29. It should also have been appreciated that seven tenants had not pursued their case against the same eviction decree and allowed the appellant to obtain possession of the suit shops. Whereas it was only the respondent who had raised the frivolous pleas against such action in these proceedings. 29. In our considered view, once the possession had been delivered and decree was recorded as satisfied in accordance with law, the litigation had come to an end leaving no lis pending. In these circumstances, in the absence of any prima facie case having been made out on any jurisdictional issue affecting the very jurisdiction of the Court in passing the eviction decree, the High Court should have declined to examine the legality of four orders impugned therein.” 6. Undisputedly, no such jurisdictional issue is involved in the present case. In the present case, a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Court below that the landlord has only one room, although it is a big room, wherein four members of the family are sleeping in that one room and landlord has purchased this house for his own use, which has several rooms. Thus, the need of bona fide was found genuine. Apart from that it has also come on record that in fact, while inspection of Commissioner it was found that sub-tenants were living in the accommodation rented out to the tenants from whom he is releasing the rent and thus, he, in fact, is not using the premises in question himself; he has not need; and has sub-let the premises in question. 7. In such view of the matter, I do not find that any exceptional case is made out warranting interference of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Present petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.