MESERS CARMENversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10245 of 2026

Mesers Carmen
                                                            .....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 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. 100 of 2026 (Messers Carmen through its Proprietor
Manohar Nainani Vs. Hari Shankar Gupta). By the order impugned, the
appellate court has partly allowed the application, Paper No. 22-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, which 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.

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
                                                                                            A227 No. 10245 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    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 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