AMIR FATIMA Vs. D.J., SAHARANPUR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Shamim Ahmad, holding brief of Sri M.A.Qadeer stated that despite repeated information, petitioner has not responded and, therefore, he has no instructions in the matter. No other counsel has appeared though the case has been called in revised. In the circumstances, I have perused the record.

(2.) Writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.1997 passed by Prescribed Authority rejecting petitioner's application under Sec. 21 (1) (b) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1972') and appellate order dated 15.1.2000 passed by District Judge, Saharanpur dismissing petitioner's appeal.

(3.) Having gone through the impugned orders as also pleadings and grounds taken in writ petition, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned in this writ petition warranting interference. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact which have not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere. The scope of judicial review under Art. 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.