Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—This petition is directed against an order passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, dated 25.5.2016, upon an application filed by the petitioner for waiver, from pre-deposit of amount under second proviso to Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”). The Tribunal has determined an amount of Rs. 19,82,768.98/- as debt due and payable. By invoking jurisdiction under third proviso, 25% of debt due has been directed to be deposited, after adjusting a sum of Rs. 2 lacs already deposited earlier with the Tribunal, so that appeal be entertained on merits.

2. Facts, in brief, are that cash credit was extended to M/s. Thakur Brand and Company for an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-. To secure this credit, petitioner offered his residential house as a equitable mortgage. It is not in dispute that credit remained over drawn and declared as non-performing asset. A notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was thus issued on 9.2.2010 for an amount of Rs. 21,52,382/-, with future interest and incidental charges. Admittedly, this demand was not met and consequently, possession notice was issued exercising power under Section 13 (4) of the Act on 23rd March 2011. An auction sale notice was issued on 18.2.2012, for auctioning the mortgage property. A Securitization Appeal No. 111 of 2011 under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act was filed by the petitioner. This appeal came to be rejected by the Tribunal on 7.12.2015. Aggrieved by it, an appeal under Section 18 of the Act has been preferred by the petitioner, which got registered as Securitization Appeal No. 4 of 2016. It is in this appeal that an application has been filed for waiving the condition of pre-deposit of amount in terms of proviso to Section 18(1).

3. It was asserted by the petitioner that notice under Section 13(2) required deposit of a sum of Rs. 21,52,382/-, whereas a sum of Rs. 15,92,000/- has already been deposited after 13 (2) notice with the bank. A further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been deposited with the Appellate Tribunal alongwith the appeal. Contention advanced before the Appellate Tribunal was that with such deposit, no requirement existed for any further deposit to be made by the petitioner towards pre-deposit of amount.

4. Application for waiver has been opposed by the respondents on the ground that after adjusting the amount already deposited earlier, an amount of Rs. 19,82,768.95/- remains outstanding as the debt due. A notice dated 23.9.2015 is on record of the proceedings, determining the amount as debt due, to be deposited within 30 days, failing which petitioner’s possession over the property would be taken.

5. The waiver application has been allowed requiring the petitioner to deposit 25% of debt due in place of 50%. Relying upon the amount of debt due as on 23.9.2015, the Tribunal has required the petitioner to deposit 25% of such amount after adjusting Rs. 2,00,000/-, deposited with the Tribunal within 30 days. An interim protection against coercive action has also been granted while fixing the matter for 14.7.2016. It is this order which is assailed in the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that requirement of pre deposit has to be with reference to the amount claimed by secured creditor, or determined by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, whichever is less. It is contended that the sum quantified under Section 13 (2) notice alone has to be reckoned, and any subsequent accrual of interest upon it has to be ignored.

7. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of this Court in Gopal Ji Gupta v. DRAT, Allahabad and others, 2013(7) ADJ 167, in support of such proposition. The Judgement, aforesaid, is reproduced for the sake of convenience :

“Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respon