A227/10238/2026 of MESERS HIND WHEELS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 20 September 2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10238 of 2026 Court No. - 35 HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Sri Brajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Harish Chandra Kesari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Ankush Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 16.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2026 (Messers Hind Wheels through its Proprietor Sardar Bhupendra Singh Vs. Hari Shankar Gupta). By the order impugned, the appellate court has partly allowed the application, Paper No. 23-Ga, filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking a report from the Amin and has directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the monthly rent as determined under the order dated 30.01.2026 passed in Case No. 329 of 2023, which order is the subject matter of challenge in the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already made the requisite pre-deposit contemplated under Section 35(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021), at the time of filing the appeal. It is, therefore, contended that, once the statutory pre-deposit had been made, the appellate court could not have directed the petitioner to make any further deposit during the pendency of the appeal. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankush Tandon, C.S.C. Mesers Hind Wheels .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the deposit made at the time of institution of the appeal does not exhaust the statutory obligation contemplated under the proviso to Section 35(1) of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. It is submitted that where the order under challenge gives rise to a recurring liability, the obligation to deposit the amount contemplated by the statute correspondingly continues in respect of the liability accruing during the pendency of the appeal. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Hemant Kumar Garg Vs. Pulkit Garg, 2026 (8) ADJ 21, wherein this Court considered whether the requirement of pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 35(1) is confined to a one-time deposit calculated up to the date of filing of the appeal or extends to recurring liabilities accruing during its pendency. The Court held that, in respect of recurring liabilities, the statutory obligation of deposit operates continuously during the pendency of the appeal and that a direction issued by the appellate authority to secure such compliance is within its jurisdiction. The distinction between the two aspects of the statutory obligation is material. The deposit made at the stage of institution of the appeal is referable to the liability required to be secured for maintaining the appeal. Where, however, the order under challenge determines a liability which continues to accrue from month to month, the statutory requirement cannot be treated as having been exhausted merely by the deposit made on the date of institution of the appeal. The obligation in respect of the recurring liability continues to operate during the pendency of the appeal, subject, of course, to the terms of the statute and the order under challenge. The aforesaid position has already been considered and explained by this Court in Hemant Kumar Garg (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the legal position so enunciated, nor has any distinguishing circumstance been shown which would warrant a different A227 No. 10238 of 2026

view in the present case. Consequently, the direction issued by the appellate court requiring the petitioner to deposit 50% of the monthly rent during the pendency of the appeal cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or otherwise legally unsustainable. No other submission has been advanced which may require consideration. The petition is, accordingly, devoid of merit and is dismissed. (Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.) September 21, 2026 Aiman A227 No. 10238 of 2026

Digitally signed by :- AIMAN FAROOQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad