The requirement of a specified pre-deposit as a condition for filing an appeal is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite. While courts may provide procedural guidance to fill statutory voids in operation, they cannot utilize such power to waive or extend substantive compliance requirements essential for legal validity.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing along with Sri Anurag Srivastava, for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing along with Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., has also been heard on the question relating to interpretation of the statutory provisions and the rules framed thereunder.

2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed questioning the correctness of the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Bijnor, acting as Rent Authority, whereby the application moved by the petitioner on 07.11.2025 seeking to deposit fifty percent of the adjudicated amount in terms of Section 35(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 [Act 2021] has been rejected.

3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are not in dispute. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of Shop No. 20 situated at Ramesh Super Bazar, Mandi Pamarganj, Bijnor. Proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord under Sections 21(2) and 23 of the Act, 2021 culminated in an order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Rent Authority directing eviction of the petitioner and payment of arrears, compensation and costs. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 35(1) of the Act before the Rent Tribunal on 08.09.2025. Admittedly, the appeal was not accompanied by deposit of fifty percent of the adjudicated amount. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the Rent Authority on 07.11.2025, nearly 90 days after the eviction order, seeking to deposit the said amount, which application has been rejected by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon passing of the final order dated 07.08.2025, the Rent Authority became functus officio and was divested of jurisdiction to entertain or decide any application touching upon the appellate process, including the question of limitation. It is submitted that the issue whether the appeal was within time or otherwise could only have been examined by the Rent Tribunal, and the Rent Authority acted wholly without jurisdiction in rejecting the application on that ground.

5. It is further contended that the Act, 2021 and the Rules framed thereunder do not prescribe the forum or mechanism for making the pre- deposit. In the absence of any statutory guidance, the petitioner cannot be penalized for having approached the Rent Authority, which had determined the liability and was the natural repository of the amount. It is urged that procedural uncertainty ought not to defeat a substantive right of appeal.

6. Placing reliance upon Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms , (2002) 5 SCC 294 it is contended that where the statute and the rules are silent on procedure, constitutional courts are empowered to issue appropriate directions to ensure that the legislative intent is not defeated.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the res