(1.) This is tenant's writ petition, who has lost in both the Courts below. Respondent-landlord instituted application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") registered as P.A. Case No. 2 of 2010 seeking release of shop in dispute on the ground that the same is required for settling his sons in business who are unemployed. Petitioner contended that there is another shop on the eastern side which is lying vacant in which earlier U.P. Hathkargha Udyog was tenant but pursuant to a compromise between landlord and the said tenant, the shop was vacated and that shop is still lying vacant and may be utilized for that purpose. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding that in 2004 after the shop was vacated, it was let out to Mohan Sindhi who is doing business, and, the said shop is in occupation of Mohan Sindhi and not lying vacant. These are concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and nothing has been placed before this Court to show that the said findings are perverse or contrary to record. It is contended that petitioner sought to cross-examine Mohan Sindhi, which was not permitted. In the proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972 which are summary, it is always open to the petitioner to adduce the oral evidence but when the Courts below did not find any reason to allow cross-examination that by itself would not vitiate the entire proceedings and also the impugned orders founded on the appreciation of evidence available on record, which was enough and sufficient for the purpose of considering his application.
(2.) Both the Courts below have recorded findings of facts which have not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record justifying interference. The scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Jalil Ahmad v. 16th Addl. Distt. Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, 2012 95 AllLR 534. 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. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. Dismissed.