JUDGMENT Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi,J.: - Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records. 2. A very brief point is involved in this revision. The revisionist is the plaintiff in Small Cause Case no.12 of 2006, in which the defendant/opposite parties appeared and moved application paper no.12-C under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and under Order 15 Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for permission to deposit the admitted rent together with 9 per cent interest, court fees, approximate expenses for advocate, typing expenses and misc. expenses etc. which has been allowed by the learned Judge, S.C.C. The plaintiff has come to this Court for challenging the impugned order on the ground that the joint application under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. cannot be moved; the opposite parties were required to deposit rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month since January 1989 but the learned Trial Court has permitted the opposite parties to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.5,00/- per month, that too, from March 2004 to November 2006, together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent. It was also alleged that the first date of hearing was 27.11.2006 but the opposite parties have moved an application on 12.12.2006 and, as such the deposit has not been made on the first date of hearing. 3. It is settled law that the tenant is under an obligation to deposit rent admitted to be due and not the rent claimed by the plaintiff. Interestingly, in this case the opposite parties are none else but District Cane Officer, The Cane Commissioner and State of U.P. who cannot make any payment without obtaining financial sanction as required under financial handbook and various government orders. However, this matter could have been agitated before the learned Trial Court by the revisionist. The impugned order relates to mere permission to deposit the rent. By the impugned order the learned Trial Court has not shut the doors of law to consider it at the time of final hearing of the case. This is purely a interlocutory order and no lis has been determined by the learned Trial Court. 4. The impugned order relates to mere permission to deposit the rent. By the impugned order the learned Trial Court has not shut the doors of law to consider it at the time of final hearing of the case. This is purely a interlocutory order and no lis has been determined by the learned Trial Court. 4. The revision is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and others v. Maruti Hari Jadhav and Others, reported in AIR 1966 SC 153 . Accordingly, revision is dismissed.