MESERS HIND WHEELSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
      MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10238 of 2026

Mesers Hind Wheels
                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         :   Brajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)         :   Ankush Tandon, C.S.C.

Court No. - 35
  HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Brajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Harish Chandra Kesari, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Ankush
Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent.

The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated
16.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Court No. 9, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2026 (Messers
Hind Wheels through its Proprietor Sardar Bhupendra Singh
Vs. Hari Shankar Gupta). By the order impugned, the appellate
court has partly allowed the application, Paper No. 23-Ga, filed
by the petitioner-tenant seeking a report from the Amin and has
directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the monthly rent as
determined under the order dated 30.01.2026 passed in Case
No. 329 of 2023, which order is the subject matter of challenge
in the appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had already made the requisite pre-deposit contemplated under
Section 35(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021), at the
time of filing the appeal. It is, therefore, contended that, once
the statutory pre-deposit had been made, the appellate court
could not have directed the petitioner to make any further
deposit during the pendency of the appeal.
                                                    A227 No. 10238 of 2026
                           2


Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other
hand, submits that the deposit made at the time of institution of
the appeal does not exhaust the statutory obligation
contemplated under the proviso to Section 35(1) of U.P. Act
No. 16 of 2021. It is submitted that where the order under
challenge gives rise to a recurring liability, the obligation to
deposit the amount contemplated by the statute
correspondingly continues in respect of the liability accruing
during the pendency of the appeal. Reliance has been placed
upon the judgment of this Court in Hemant Kumar Garg Vs.
Pulkit Garg, 2026 (8) ADJ 21, wherein this Court considered
whether the requirement of pre-deposit under the proviso to
Section 35(1) is confined to a one-time deposit calculated up to
the date of filing of the appeal or extends to recurring liabilities
accruing during its pendency. The Court held that, in respect of
recurring liabilities, the statutory obligation of deposit operates
continuously during the pendency of the appeal and that a
direction issued by the appellate authority to secure such
compliance is within its jurisdiction.

The distinction between the two aspects of the statutory
obligation is material. The deposit made at the stage of
institution of the appeal is referable to the liability required to
be secured for maintaining the appeal. Where, however, the
order under challenge determines a liability which continues to
accrue from month to month, the statutory requirement cannot
be treated as having been exhausted merely by the deposit
made on the date of institution of the appeal. The obligation in
respect of the recurring liability continues to operate during the
pendency of the appeal, subject, of course, to the terms of the
statute and the order under challenge.

The aforesaid position has already been considered and
explained by this Court in Hemant Kumar Garg (supra).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute
the legal position so enunciated, nor has any distinguishing
circumstance been shown which would warrant a different
                                                                                          A227 No. 10238 of 2026
                                                                  3


                                        view in the present case. Consequently, the direction issued by
                                        the appellate court requiring the petitioner to deposit 50% of
                                        the monthly rent during the pendency of the appeal cannot be
                                        said to be without jurisdiction or otherwise legally
                                        unsustainable.

                                        No other submission has been advanced which may require
                                        consideration.

                                        The petition is, accordingly, devoid of merit and is dismissed.

                                                                  (Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
                                        September 21, 2026
                                        Aiman




Digitally signed by :-
AIMAN FAROOQUI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad