I've found the notation $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})\backslash \mathbb{H}$ in some notes, where $$SL(2,\mathbb{Z})= \left\{ \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} \in GL(2,\mathbb{Z})\ \bigg \rvert \ ad-bc=1 \right\} $$
$$ \mathbb{H}= \left\{ z \in \mathbb{C} \ \big\rvert \ \text{Im}(z)>0 \right\} $$
But I'm not sure what the author meant by it. Does it mean: $\left\{SL(2,\mathbb{Z})\cdot z \ \big \rvert \ z \in \mathbb{H} \right\}$? It doesn't quite makes sense to me since $\ \forall z \in \mathbb{H}, \ SL(2,\mathbb{Z})\cdot z=\mathbb{H}. $
It is not true that $\ \forall z \in \mathbb{H}, \ SL(2,\mathbb{Z})\cdot z=\mathbb{H}. $. $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ is discrete so for any point $z \in \mathbb{H}$ the orbit is that countable collection of points inside $\mathbb{H}$. As $z$ varies, these collections vary but some points give the same orbits. These become the same point in the quotient.
You might be thinking of $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ in which case the action is transitive.
There is a convenient fundamental domain for this. See this image.