JUDGMENT Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J. Heard Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3-Munna @ Noor Alam has filed an application dated 29.9.2004 under Section 30 (1) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), which was registered as Misc. Case No. 102/70/04, for deposit of the alleged rent of Rs.100/- per month, claiming himself to be tenant of the petitioner with respect to a "paan shop", which is said to be situated just in front of the premises of the petitioner on the public drainage and the road side space between the premises of the petitioner and the adjacent road claiming himself to be tenant for the last 18 years. The petitioner has filed his objection dated 21.12.2009, denying any kind of tenant-landlord relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.3, to which the respondent No.3 has also filed his replication. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bahraich, vide order dated 12.5.2011, allowed the aforesaid application of the respondent No.3, permitting him to deposit the rent on his risk. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.5.2011, the petitioner has filed a revision, bearing No. 63 of 2011, which was dismissed by the Revisional Court vide judgment and order dated 4.3.2015 by observing that Civil Revision under Section 115 C.P.C. is not maintainable against an order passed under Section 30 (1) of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while dismissing the revision, the revisional court has made certain observation in para-9 of the order dated 4.3.2015, which may affect the case filed by the respondent No.3 against the petitioner. His submission is that respondent No.3 is not the tenant of the petitioner and it is not a building as contemplated under the Act as it is the wooden structure (Gumti) which is claimed under tenancy by respondent No.3. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the record, since the petitioner himself stated that respondent No.3 is not his tenant and there is no relationship of landlord-tenant with the respondent No.3, therefore, the petitioner cannot have any objection when the respondent No.3 has deposited the rent on his risk in pursuance to the order dated 12.5.2015. Therefore, the Revisional Court has rightly dismissed the revision as not maintainable. 6. Therefore, the Revisional Court has rightly dismissed the revision as not maintainable. 6. So far as observations made in para-9 of the impugned judgment is concerned, I am of the opinion that there was no occasion for the Revisional Court to make observation as mentioned in para-9 of the order as perusal of it reveals that such observation may deviate the mind of the trial Court in further proceedings. Therefore, it is provided that the observations made in para-9 of the impugned judgements should not be read by the trial Court in further proceedings. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of finally.