Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, Advocate, appearing for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondents, despite service of notice though names of Sri M.P. Singh and Mahendra Pratap Singh are shown in the cause list as counsel for respondents. 2. Writ petition is directed against the revisional order dated 17.7.1996 passed by 4th Addl. District Judge, Azamgarh allowing tenant-respondents' revision and dismissing the suit filed by petitioner-landlord for eviction after setting aside Trial Courts judgment dated 20.1.1994. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that tenant had not deposited the entire rent and, therefore, was defaulter. The revisional Court has committed patent error in observing that tenant has deposited the entire amount. 4. The judgement of Revisional Court shows that in para 17, 18 and 19, it has discussed in detail various deposits of rent made by tenants and also the amount deposited in Misc. Case No. 46 of 1988 under Section 30 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). The Court has also found that deposits if made under Section 30 (2) of Act, 1972 shall also qualify for benefit under Section 20 (4) and if entire such amount is taken into consideration, the payment due since 1968 including the rent barred by time stood deposited. Hence the tenants were not in default and decree of eviction could not have been passed. 5. I find the view taken by the Revisional Court regarding Section 30 (2) vis-a-vis Section 20 (4) of Act, 1972 fortified by Apex Court's decision in Kailash Chandra and another Vs. Mukundi Lal and others 2002 (2) SCC 678 wherein Apex Court found the amount deposited under Section 30 (2), deductible under Section 20 (4) of Act, 1972 observing as under: "The effect of payment under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 is that of payment by the depositor to the landlord. If it is so, how the said amount can be treated to be due from the tenant of payment to the landlord? If the amount deposited under Sub-section (2) is not deductible under Sub-section (4) of Section 20 like the deposit made under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 and despite the deposit the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent, it would render Sub-section (2) of Section 30 devoid of meaning ..." 6. If the amount deposited under Sub-section (2) is not deductible under Sub-section (4) of Section 20 like the deposit made under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 and despite the deposit the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent, it would render Sub-section (2) of Section 30 devoid of meaning ..." 6. In the entire writ petition, there is no pleading to show that the findings recorded by Revisional Court are perverse warranting interference in this writ petition which is basically a writ petition under Article 227 invoking supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts though titled as having been filed under Section 226. It is not the case of petitioner that he is seeking writ of prohibition under Article 226 but the grievance is that there is grave error committed by subordinate Court and therefore, he has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court which is referable to Article 227. Having gone through the impugned order as also pleadings and grounds taken in writ petition, I do not find any such error. The scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27433 of 1991 (Lala Ram Narain Vs. Xth Additional District Judge, Moradabad and others) decided on 13.7.2012. 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. 7. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. 8. Dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. _