The statutory pre-deposit requirement during an appeal against a rent revision order is a continuing, recurring obligation. Appellate authorities may mandate periodic payments of the ongoing liability to balance the parties' interests and ensure compliance with the legislative intent of securing the beneficiary of the impugned order.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the Rent Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.26, Agra in Rent Appeal No. 07 of 2026.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent filed an application under Section 10 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 seeking determination and enhancement of rent, asserting that the tenanted premises had been purchased by him and that the petitioner, being a tenant under the previous owner, had defaulted in payment of rent. The petitioner, upon appearance, disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the respondent’s title and raised objections regarding maintainability.

4. The Rent Authority, Agra, by order dated 24.11.2025, passed in Case No. 1196 of 2024 under Section 10(1) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021, revised the rent payable by the tenant. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 07 of 2026. While entertaining the appeal, the Rent Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 02.01.2026, took note of the Munsarim’s report indicating that 50 percent of the amount due under the impugned order had been deposited. The Tribunal thereafter directed the appellant-tenant to continue depositing 50 percent of the revised rent, i.e., Rs. 22,500/- per month (out of Rs. 45,000/-), by the 7th of each succeeding month, and granted interim protection.

5. Assailing the said direction, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the proviso to Section 35(1) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 to contend that the requirement of deposit stands satisfied once 50 percent of the amount due as on the date of filing of the appeal is deposited, and that no further direction for continuous deposit during pendency of the appeal could have been imposed. It is urged that the direction in effect enforces the impugned order and renders the appeal illusory.

6. The core question that arises for consideration is whether the requirement of pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 35(1) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 is confined to a one-time deposit calculated up to the date of filing of the appeal, or whether it extends to a continuing obligation covering recurring liabilities accruing during the pendency of the appeal.

7. The submission necessitates consideration of the scope and import of Section 35 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. Section 35(1) provides for a statutory appeal against an order passed by the Rent Authority. It reads as follows:

“35. Appeal.—

(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 has deposited fifty per cent of the entire payable amount under the impugned order of the rent authority."

8. The proviso, thus, engrafts a clear and mandatory condition precedent for the maintainability of an appeal. The legislative intent is explicit—an appellant seeking to avail the statutory remedy must first comply with the requirement of depositing 50 percent of the “entire amount payable under the impugned orde