MAHENDRA Vs. M.J. MASSEY (DECEASED) & OTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri M.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 08.08.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Meerut allowing appeal of respondent-landlord and consequently allowing release application filed under Sec. 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") and it had directed the petitioner-tenant to vacant premises in dispute i.e. a shop and releasing the same in favour of landlord.

(3.) The Appellate Court has recorded findings on personal need to be genuine and bona fide and issue of hardship has also decided in favour of landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error in the impugned appellate judgment warranting interference in writ jurisdiction under Art. 226/227 of Constitution of India. The scope of judicial review under Art. 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. District 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.