JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J: - Heard Sri Puneet Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondents though name of Sri D.S. Srivastava has been shown in the cause list as counsel for respondents. 2. It is contended that neither respondent-tenant made any deposit under Section 30 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") nor such deposit made in suit in question i.e. S.C.C. Suit No. 18 of 1992. His claim was that he deposited rent upto September 1 992 in Suit No. 14 of 1988 which was dismissed on 21.7.1989 and Misc. Application No. 5/74 of 1989 in the aforesaid suit was also dismissed on 27.11.1 989 and another Misc. Application No. 6/74 of 1 989 for restoration filed by the landlord was dismissed on 5.10.1991 and thereafter no proceedings were pending in the aforesaid suit which could have allowed the tenant to deposit 'any amount in the aforesaid suit and learned Revisional Court in giving credit to the tenant in respect to deposit made from October 1989 to September 1992 in Original Suit No. 14 of 1988 has committed patent error in law and, therefore, the revisional order cannot sustain. 3. The record shows that Suit No. 14 of 1988, with respect to rent and damages, was dismissed in default on 21.7.1989. A Misc. Application Case No. 5/74 of 1989 was filed for restoration of Suit which was allowed by order dated 18.11.1989 on payment of cost of Rs. 20/- but since the cost was not paid, the restoration order stood rejected and the suit also dismissed on 27.11.1989. Again Misc. Application No. 6/74 of 1989 was filed for restoration but it was also dismissed on 5.10.1991. Therefore for all practical purposes the regular suit as well as the Misc. Applications therein ceased to be functional on 5.10.1991 when the last misc. application was rejected. There was no occasion for tenant to make any deposit of rent in the aforesaid suit or misc. proceeding which have already come to an end. Nothing could have allowed him to deposit rent upto September 1992 in the said proceedings. 4. Applications therein ceased to be functional on 5.10.1991 when the last misc. application was rejected. There was no occasion for tenant to make any deposit of rent in the aforesaid suit or misc. proceeding which have already come to an end. Nothing could have allowed him to deposit rent upto September 1992 in the said proceedings. 4. It is well settled that if rent has not been paid to landlord directly, only such rent can be given credit which is deposited with any authority in accordance with law and not the illegal or unauthorized payment made where it was not permissible or possible. The aforesaid deposit, therefore, could not have been held to be a valid deposit. In my view, therefore, Revisional Court has clearly committed error in passing the impugned order. The Impugned revisional order, therefore, cannot sustain. 5. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned revisional order dated 22.8.2000 (Annexure 1 to writ petition) is set aside. Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 20.8.1999 is restored and confirmed. Petition allowed.