SMT SANJEEDA ANSARI v. INCHARGE DISTRICT JUDGE AND 5 OTHERS
WRIA/15916/2025 · 2025-10-28
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 188160 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 188160 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15916 of 2025
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Plaintiffs-respondents no.3 to 6 had filed an application under Section 21(2) of Uttar Pradesh Regulations of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter called as "Act of 2021") for arrears of rent and eviction against the petitioner. The said application was allowed by the Rent Authority on
14.08.2025. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Authority, petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 35(1) of the Act of 2021 before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was heard at the time of registration and was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 09.09.2025 on the ground that the statutory provisions of Section 35(1) of the Act of 2021 have not been complied with, and half of the decreetal amount of rent has not been deposited as mandated in Section 35(1), hence the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an application for waiver was moved before the Appellate Authority on the ground that the plaintiffs-respondents are not the landlord and the petitioner may be exempted from depositing half of the rent as mandated under Section 35(1) of the Act before the appeal is heard. According to him, the Appellate Authority without deciding the waiver application had proceeded to dismiss the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is a mandatory Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Aslam, Rafiuddin Ansari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Srivastava Smt Sanjeeda Ansari .....Petitioner(s) Incharge District Judge And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)
provision that before the appeal is heard, the petitioner was required to deposit 50% of the amount which is pre-deposit as provided in proviso to Section 35(1) of the Act. 5. I have respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. Section 35(1) of the Act of 2021 reads as under:-
"35. (1)- Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Authority may prefer an appeal along with a certified copy of such order to the Rent Tribunal within the local limits of which the premises is situated, within a period of thirty days from the date of that order: Provided that no appeal shall lie unless the appellant pre-deposits fifty percent of the entire payable amount under the impugned order of the Rent Authority."
7.
From perusal of the proviso to Section 35(1), it is clear that 50% of the amount payable has to be deposited as pre-deposit before the appeal is registered and heard before the Appellate Authority. Being a statutory provision, petitioner was required to comply the same. He had only made a deposit of Rs.10,000/- at the time of filing the appeal. The total outstanding against the petitioner was Rs.5,31,500/- and half of it comes to Rs.2,65,770/- , and only Rs.10,000/- has been deposited at the time of filing of the appeal. It is an admitted position that balance amount of Rs.2,55,770/- was not deposited. 8. Once, the Court below has recorded finding that the amount deposited by the petitioner was short by Rs.2,55,770/-, the appeal could not be entertained in view of Section 35(1) of the Act. 9. The argument raised by counsel for the petitioner does not find force in view of the fact that waiver application was rejected while the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the statutory provisions of Section 35(1). 10. I find no ground to interfere in the order passed by the Court below. 11. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. However, as the execution case is pending consideration being Execution Case No.5439 of 2025, the Executing Court is hereby directed to proceed with the said execution case strictly in accordance with law and conclude the WRIA No. 15916 of 2025 2
same in light of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of Periyammal vs. V. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. October 29, 2025 SK Goswami
WRIA No. 15916 of 2025 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad