Appeal court fee must include accrued or ascertainable mesne profits challenged in the decretal liability.

The respondent-landlady instituted Rent Case No. 4309 of 2024 under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (“Act, 2021”), seeking eviction of the petitioner from three shops, arrears of rent, and mesne profits.

By order dated 19 February 2026, the Rent Authority directed eviction, awarded arrears of rent, and imposed mesne profits at Rs. 2,000 per day, together with consequential monetary liabilities.

The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 35 of the Act, 2021 before the Rent Tribunal and deposited Rs. 7,00,000 towards the statutory pre-deposit.

He also paid court fee equivalent to that paid before the Rent Authority.

The respondent objected that the appeal was deficiently stamped because court fee had not been paid on the entire decretal amount, including mesne profits.

The Rent Tribunal accepted the objection and directed the petitioner to deposit additional court fee on the entire decretal amount.

The petitioner challenged that direction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether a memorandum of appeal under Section 35 of the Act, 2021 against a composite decree must be valued with reference to the subject matter in dispute in appeal, including accrued or ascertainable mesne profits?

2. Whether the court fee payable on the appeal is confined to the court fee paid on the original application before the Rent Authority?

3. Whether the Rent Tribunal acted illegally or without jurisdiction in directing the petitioner to make good the deficiency in court fee?

The Court applied Sections 35, 39 and 42 of the Act, 2021.

Section 35 requires an appellant to pre-deposit fifty per cent of the entire amount payable under the impugned order, while Section 39(1) attracts the Court Fees Act, 1870 to applications and appeals under the Act.

Section 39(2) creates a limited statutory fiction by deeming the application for recovery of possession and the memorandum of appeal to be suits between the landlord and tenant for court-fee computation; it does not require appellate court fee to be identical to the fee paid at the original stage.

Under Section 7 and Schedule I, Article 1 of the Court Fees Act, an appeal is valued according to the subject matter in dispute in appeal.

The valuation depends on the relief or liability actually challenged, rather than the valuation adopted in the original proceeding.

In State of Maharashtra v. Mishrilal Tarachand Lodha, the Supreme Court held that an appellate court fee is determined by the liability actually brought in issue; an unchallenged component does not form part of the subject matter in dispute.

The Court distinguished contingent or future mesne profits from mesne profits that have accrued or become capable of precise arithmetical ascertainment.

It also relied on In re Kudappa Subbamma, Ragho Prasad v. B. Pratap Narain Agrawal and Alok Kumar Jain v. Indra Bhushan Sawhney regarding crystallised monetary liability, appellate valuation, and the interaction between Sections 39 and 42 of the Act, 2021.

The Court held that Section 39(2) only attracts the Court Fees Act and does not freeze appellate valuation at the amount of court fee paid before the Rent Authority.

The petitioner had challenged the composite decree in its entirety, including eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits; therefore, the subject matter in dispute extended to the decretal liabilities he sought to avoid.

Although future or unascertained mesne profits may not be presently valu-able, the mesne profits in this case had been awarded at a fixed rate and had accrued or become capable of precise computation by the date of appeal.

They consequently formed part of the existing monetary burden challenged in the appeal.

The fact that the landlady’s court fee on mesne profits was directed to be recovered at execution did not exempt the petitioner from his independent obligation to pay appropriate appellate court fee.

The statutory pre-deposit under Section 35 operated independently from the court-fee requirement under Section 39.

Since the Tribunal merely granted an opportunity to cure the deficiency rather than rejecting the appeal, its order disclosed no jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227.

Accrued or ascertainable mesne profits forming part of the decretal liability must be included in the computation of appellate court fee where that liability is challenged.

The Rent Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioner to make good the deficient court fee.

The petition under Article 227 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.