Pre-deposit under Section 35(1) extends to recurring liabilities accruing during pendency of appeal.

The petitioner-tenant challenged the order dated 16 July 2026 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2026.

The appellate court had partly allowed the petitioner’s application seeking an Ameen’s report and directed it to deposit 50% of the monthly rent determined under the Rent Authority’s order dated 30 January 2026 in Case No. 328 of 2023, which was under challenge in the appeal.

The petitioner contended that it had already deposited the requisite 50% of the amount payable under the impugned order at the time of filing the appeal, pursuant to the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, and that no further deposit could be required during the appeal’s pendency.

The respondents argued that, because the impugned order created a recurring monthly rent liability, the statutory deposit requirement extended to amounts accruing during the pendency of the appeal.

Whether the deposit of 50% of the amount payable under the impugned order, made at the time of instituting an appeal under the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, exhausts the statutory pre-deposit requirement where the impugned order creates a recurring liability.

Whether the appellate court was competent to direct the appellant-tenant to deposit 50% of the monthly rent accruing during the pendency of the appeal.

The Court applied Section 35(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, particularly its proviso, which provides that no appeal shall lie unless the appellant deposits 50% of the “entire payable amount” under the impugned Rent Authority order.

The proviso constitutes a mandatory statutory condition precedent to the maintainability of an appeal, since the right of appeal is a statutory right subject to legislative conditions.

Where the impugned order creates a recurring or continuing liability, the expression “entire payable amount” is not confined to the amount accrued on the date of filing the appeal; the statutory obligation extends to subsequent accruals during the appeal’s pendency.

The Court relied on Hemant Kumar Garg v. Pulkit Garg, 2026 (8) ADJ 213, which held that the pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 35(1) continues to operate in respect of recurring liabilities arising during the pendency of the appeal.

The Rent Authority’s order dated 30 January 2026 determined the monthly rent payable for the premises, thereby creating a recurring liability rather than a one-time crystallised amount.

Consequently, the initial deposit made when the appeal was instituted satisfied the statutory condition only in respect of the amount then payable; it did not permanently freeze the obligation as of the filing date.

Treating the initial deposit as exhaustive would enable the tenant to retain possession throughout the appeal without depositing the prescribed proportion of rent accruing month by month, defeating the statutory protection afforded to the successful party.

The direction to deposit 50% of the continuing monthly rent was therefore not an additional condition of appeal or execution of the impugned order, but a means of giving continuing effect to the statutory requirement under Section 35(1).

No stay or modification of the monthly liability had been shown.

The appellate court was justified in directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the monthly rent during the pendency of the appeal.

Finding no jurisdictional error or other infirmity in the appellate order, the High Court dismissed the petition under Article 227 as devoid of merit.