HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10009 of 2025 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Time extension application, filed today, is taken on record. 2. On 14.10.2025, following order was passed:- "1. The landlord respondent had instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner. The said suit was decreed on 17.4.2025 and tenant was liable to pay the arrears of rent and expenses amounting to Rs. 52,236/- and also an amount at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit i.e. from 15.7.2023 till the possession is handed over. Against the eviction order an appeal under Section 35 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 was filed, which has been dismissed on the ground that despite opportunity having been given to the petitioner only an amount of Rs. 31,170/- has been deposited and not the statutory amount of fifty percent as provided under Section 35 (2) of the Act of 2021, as such, the appeal is not maintainable and same has been dismissed. 2. Earlier, time was granted to the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit. 3. Petitioner before this Court has not given any undertaking that he will make deficiency good and deposit the amount before the appellate authority pursuant to the decree of the rent authority where shortfall of the rent has been found. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the entire amount will be deposited within a period of one week from today. 5. Put up this matter, as fresh, on 30.10.2025. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shekhar Gangal Aashif .....Petitioner(s) Gopal Krishna Gangal .....Respondent(s) 6. On the next date fixed, petitioner shall file an affidavit bringing on record the entire deposit paid as per the decree dated 17.4.2025 passed by the rent authority." 3. This Court had granted last opportunity to the petitioner, who is tenant, to deposit the 50% amount for entertainment of his appeal under Section 35(1) of the Act of 2021. Despite time having been granted, petitioner has failed to deposit the statutory amount as mandated in Section 35(1) of the Act. 4. This Court finds that no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner and the time extension application is misconceived and the same stands dismissed. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that no interference is required in the orders impugned, as the petitioner is a defaulter and has not deposited the statutory amount as mandated by the Court below. 6. Writ petition is hereby dismissed. October 30, 2025 SK Goswami A227 No. 10009 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad