JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard leaned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is a tenant. He applied under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for permission to deposit rent in court. The permission was granted. 3. The respondent landlord preferred revisions against the aforesaid orders. The revisions have been admitted on 25.11.2008. 4. The orders admitting the revisions have been challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the revisions are not maintainable. 5. In Sri Ram Bharosey Lal Vs. the Munsif Agra and others 1980 ARC 427 it has been held that a revision is not maintainable against an order passed under Section 30 of the Act. 6. A similar view has been expressed by another Judge of this Court in Anwar Ali Vs. District Judge, Mordabad and another 2002 (49) ALR 501. The said view has been reiterated in Dr. Naimuddin @ Naim Ahmad Vs. Distreict Judge, Etah and others 2005 (58) ALR 125. Again in Rajendra Kumar Karnawal Vs. Smt. Kamlesh Garg and others 2005(60) ALR 675 it has been held that the revision against he order allowing application under Section 30 of the Act is not maintainable. 7. In view of the above authorities, the order passed under Section 30 of the Act granting permission to deposit rent in court is not revisable. Therefore, the revisional court has no jurisdiction to entertain any revision in this regard. 8. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 25.11.2008 admitting the revisions are without jurisdiction and are hereby quashed. 9. The writ petitions are allowed.