Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17734 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1286 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajesh Gupta And Another Respondent :- Rent Authority/Addl. District Magistrate City(East) Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avanindra Singh Parihar,Avanish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging an order dated 21.07.2023 whereby an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner under Section 21 of the U.P. Rent Act 2021, an order dated 30.01.2024 whereby the appeal was dismissed on account of non presence and for non deposit of the rent as prescribed under Section 35(1) of the Act as well as the order dated 18.11.2024 whereby the application of the petitioner for recall of the order dated 21.07.2023 was rejected. 3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that on an application moved by the landlord, an order of eviction came to be passed on 21.07.2023. The said order is on record. The petitioner was directed to vacate the premises, the flat in question, which was taken on rent by the petitioner from the landlord and further directions were issued that in case the flat is not vacated within 30 days, he would be liable to pay rent for a period of two months at twice the agreed rent and after two months at the rate of four times of the agreed rent till the time the possession is handed over. The petitioner preferred an appeal, however as the pre deposit as is required in terms of the mandate of proviso to Section 35(1) was not made, the appeal came to be dismissed on 30.01.2024. Subsequently, instead of making the deposit, the petitioner moved an application for review of the order dated 21.07.2023, which too was dismissed. 4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly he could not pay the amount as is prescribed and has preferred an appeal under Section 35 of the Act. He thus attacks the main order dated 21.07.2023 on the ground that the mandatory requirements of Section 4(3) were not complied with and as such, the proceedings were in violation of Section 38(2) of the Rent Act, 2021. He further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Amit Gupta Versus Gulab Chandra Kanodia passed in SCC Revision No. 158 of 2022 decided on 15.05.2023 in support of his contention. 5. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, admittedly in terms of the prescription contained in the Rent Act of 2021, an appeal is prescribed to the Rent Tribunal and in terms of the proviso to Section 35(1), it is incumbent that a pre deposit of 50% of the entire amount payable, be deposited. The prescriptions are that "no appeal would lie" unless the appellant deposits 50 % of the entire amount payable. The petitioner preferred the appeal but did not make the pre deposit as is required and after having exhausted his remedy of appeal has approached this Court. Once the petitioner has preferred the remedy of appeal, he is estopped from challenging the main order before this Court as admittedly statutory appeal is prescribed. Having failed to make the pre deposit, the appeal which is not an absolute right and is always available subject to restrictions having been availed and failed, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the main order. As admittedly no amount has been deposited, the order dismissing the appeal also cannot be faulted. For all the reasons, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 6. The reliance on the judgment by the petitioner is not relevant herein as much as all these questions ought to have been agitated in an appeal, which was preferred, but did not lie in view of non compliance of the conditions prescribed. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench