Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103898 Court No. - 2 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6245 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manish Duggal Respondent :- Anil Kumar And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Agarwal,Raunak Gupta Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shreya Gupta and Sri Raunak Gupta, learned counsels for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supply)/Rent Tribunal, Agra in Case No.468 of 2023 and the order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.26, Agra in Rent Appeal No.Nil of 2025 whereby the Rent Tribunal has held that the present appeal is not maintainable for non-compliance of statutory requirement of deposit of 50% of the total amount due under the order of the Rent Authority. 3. Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders cannot be sustained inasmuch as there was lack of jurisdiction with the Rent Authority to entertain the release application inasmuch as there was no agreement as contemplated under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 between the landlord and the respondent and therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 4. The petitioner has shown his inability to make statutory deposit good. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the statutory appeal against the order passed by the Rent Authority has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed to comply with the statutory deposit of 50% of the amount due under the order passed by the Rent Tribunal. It is submitted that it would amount to bypassing of the statutory provision which cannot be permitted once the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy. 6. Be that as it may, the Rent Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the deposit of 50% of the amount due has not been made and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has preferred the statutory appeal on merit and the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of statutory requirement of deposit of 50% of the total amount due under the order of the Rent Authority. The petitioner has not endeavoured to get the appeal decided on merit. This amounts to acquiesce with the order passed by the Rent Authority as the petitioner is not ready and willing to make statutory deposit. Once the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy, the petitioner cannot bypass the same as per his convenience and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 7. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed without any order as to cost. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 SSharma Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad