HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12436 of 2025 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Petitioner before this Court is a tenant of the accommodation let out by the landlord respondent. An application for release of the premises in dispute and enhancement of rent was moved which was allowed by the trial court, against which an appeal under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 has been filed, which is pending consideration. The appellate court by order dated 7.8.2025 required the petitioner to pay 50% of the rent amount before appeal being heard. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner, at the very outset, submits that some further time may be granted him for depositing the said amount. He has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in case of Mayank Mittal Vs. District Judge/Rent Tribunal and others, 2024 (1) ARC 804. 3. Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent, submits that he has no objection to the deposit being made by petitioner within the time frame fixed by this Court. 4. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perusing the material on record, as prayed by petitioner ten days further time is granted to him to deposit the statutory amount as directed by the appellate court. In case the amount in question is deposited by the petitioner by 27.10.2024, the appeal shall be heard and decided, in accordance with law, within a period of one month thereafter. In case of default, the appellate court shall proceed against the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Saurabh Srivastava Dinesh Mittal .....Petitioner(s) Karmveer Singh Rathaur And Another .....Respondent(s) 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of. October 13, 2025 Shekhar A227 No. 12436 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad