Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri A.Z. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.2.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 549/70 of 2012 (Farhaan Saeed Vs. Rahat Saeed) and order dated 8.7.2013 passed by the court below in Civil Revision No. 59/70 of 2013 ( Rahat Saeed Vs. Farhaan Saeed). 3. Vide order dated 23.2.2013, the application of the other side filed under section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short, 'the Act') for deposit of rent has been allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar, whereas by the subsequent order dated 8.7.2013, the petitioner's revision has been dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while passing the order dated 23.2.2013, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has mis-read the objections filed by the petitioner and observed that the opposite party/petitioner has admitted the applicant/respondent as a tenant. In his submissions, the petitioner has never admitted the respondent as a tenant and in case this finding is allowed to be sustained, it will prejudice the petitioner's case, if, in future, he institutes a suit in original side treating the respondent as an unauthorized occupant or files an application seeking release of the accommodation. 5. On being confronted as to what is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the validity of the order dated 8.7.2013 by which the petitioner's revision has been dismissed holding it as not maintainable, learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate his argument that the revision is maintainable. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the revisional court, while dismissing the revision as not maintainable, has also observed that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), while allowing the application filed under section 30 of the Act for deposit of rent has although observed that the petitioner has accepted the respondent as a tenant, but in the operative portion of the order, he has observed that it will not influence the right of the landlord in any manner. 7. I do not find any error in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. The writ petition is dismissed. 8. 7. I do not find any error in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. The writ petition is dismissed. 8. However, it is observed that in case the petitioner institutes a suit or take any other proceeding and there, relationship of the landlord and tenant is disputed, the finding recorded in the order dated 23.2.2013 shall not be taken into consideration and the same shall be decided independently in accordance with law. _____________