Pre-deposit under Section 35(1) is a jurisdictional condition precedent; non-compliance renders a tenancy appeal non-est.

The petitioner is a tenant of Shop No. 20 in Bijnor. Following proceedings under Sections 21(2) and 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 ("Act, 2021"), the Rent Authority passed an eviction order on 07.08.2025, directing the petitioner to vacate and pay arrears/compensation

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Rent Tribunal on 08.09.2025 but failed to include the mandatory 50% pre-deposit

On 07.11.2025, nearly 90 days after the eviction order, the petitioner applied to the Rent Authority to deposit the amount

The Rent Authority rejected the application, leading to this petition under Article 227

1. Whether the Rent Authority became functus officio after passing the final order, thereby lacking jurisdiction to reject the application for deposit

2. Whether the requirement of 50% pre-deposit under Section 35(1) of the Act, 2021 is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature

3. Whether the High Court can evolve a procedural framework for making pre-deposits in the absence of specific statutory guidelines

Section 35(1) of the Act, 2021, which mandates that "no appeal shall lie" unless the appellant pre-deposits 50% of the entire payable amount

Principle from Commissioner of Income Tax v. Filmistan Ltd. to distinguish between appeals that cannot be "entertained" versus those where the right "shall not lie"

Principle from Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and can be conditioned upon pre-deposit

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and the doctrine from Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, allowing courts to fill procedural gaps to effectuate legislative intent

The court held that the Rent Authority was not functus officio because rejecting a belated deposit application is an ancillary matter, not a re-adjudication of the merits

Analyzing Section 35(1), the court determined that the phrase "no appeal shall lie" creates a jurisdictional "gateway condition," meaning an appeal without a deposit is non-est and incompetent at its inception

The court observed that pre-deposit must co-exist with the limitation period; a deposit made 90 days late cannot retrospectively validate an incompetent appeal

While the Act was silent on how to deposit, the court found this to be a procedural omission rather than a substantive one

Consequently, it exercised Article 227 powers to bridge the gap, establishing that while the mandate is absolute, the forum (Tribunal or Authority) for receiving the deposit can be flexible to ensure the law remains workable

The court dismissed the petition, finding no jurisdictional error in the Rent Authority's order

Mandatory Procedural Framework: (i) Appellants may deposit by demand draft directly with the Rent Tribunal; (ii) Alternatively, they may deposit with the Rent Authority as a ministerial repository and file the receipt with the Tribunal; (iii) Appeals are duly instituted only if proof of deposit is furnished within the limitation period; and (iv) Tribunals have the discretion to grant reasonable time to cure defective deposits, provided the appellant seeks condonation of delay