50% Pre-Deposit For Appeal Not Exhausted At Filing Stage Where Rent Liability Is Recurring: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the order appealed against fixes a liability recurring from month to month, the fifty percent pre-deposit required by the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 is not exhausted by the deposit made at the stage of filing the appeal.

It held that the requirement continues to operate on the amounts falling due during the pendency of the appeal, and that the appellate court is competent to direct their deposit.

The proviso to Section 35(1) provides that “no appeal shall lie unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent of the entire payable amount under the impugned order of the rent authority.”

Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,

“In the latter situation, the liability cannot be regarded as a static amount crystallised on the date on which the appeal is instituted. The order under challenge continues to operate and gives rise to a corresponding liability as each succeeding period expires. The expression “entire payable amount” must, therefore, be understood in the context of the character of the liability created by the order and cannot, in the case of a recurring liability, be artificially frozen as on the date of filing of the appeal.”

Petitioner, a tenant, challenged an order dated 16.07.2026 of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2026. While partly allowing the tenant's application seeking a report from the Ameen, the appellate court directed him to deposit fifty percent of the monthly rent determined under the Rent Authority's order dated 30.01.2026 in Case No. 328 of 2023, the same order under challenge in the appeal.

It was pleaded that the pre-deposit had already been made at the time of filing and that the requirement, being a condition precedent to institution of the appeal, stood satisfied.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that where the impugned order creates a recurring liability the obligation is not exhausted at institution, placing reliance on Hemant Kumar Garg v. Pulkit Garg.

The Court observed that the mandatory character of the pre-deposit was not in dispute. It held that what fell for decision was the point of time up to which the “entire payable amount” is to be computed where the liability continues to accrue periodically rather than becoming payable once and for all. Holding that this depends on the character of the liability the order creates, the Court observed that the contrary construction would produce an anomalous result.

“A tenant could deposit fifty percent of the amount payable up to the date of institution of the appeal and, thereafter, during the entire pendency of the appellate proceedings, continue to retain the premises without depositing even the statutory proportion of the rent which becomes payable from month to month pursuant to the order under challenge. Such an interpretation would effectively sever the statutory requirement from the continuing operation of the very order against which the appeal is pending.”

Following Hemant Kumar Garg, where the order under challenge had similarly given rise to a recurring liability by way of revised rent, the Court held that the expression cannot be read in isolation from the words “under the impugned order”. It held that the distinction between the initial deposit and the subsequent deposits is one of timing and of the nature of the liability rather than of two independent conditions, and that a direction confined to fifty percent of the recurring rent does not amount to execution of the order under challenge.

Since the order dated 30.01.2026 determines the monthly rent payable for the premises, the liability was recurring and the initial deposit could not be treated as exhausting the requirement under the proviso.

Finding no feature distinguishing the case from Hemant Kumar Garg and no jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court dismissed the petition.