Mrs. Mahmad Farhana and Another Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Mrs. Mahmad Farhana and Another Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the Court further directed that the appeal shall not be heard unless the 50% of the amount as prescribed under the proviso is deposited.

Issue for consideration

Whether, the tenancy appeal having been admitted pursuant to this Court's judgment dated 12.12.2023, the appellate Court's rejection of the petitioner's stay/interim-relief application (order dated 20.01.2025) was sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the appeal itself does not lie unless the prescribed amount is deposited, there is no question of grant of any interim order; the rejection of the stay application therefore stands.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has admittedly not made the pre-deposit of 50% of the amount.

Key takeaways

Per Section 35(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, no appeal shall lie unless the appellant pre-deposits 50% of the entire payable amount under the impugned order.ratio¶5
There is no provision for waiver of the 50% pre-deposit, entitling the Appellate Court to waive the pre deposit in any manner.ratio¶5
In the absence of the pre-deposit, the appeal cannot be heard and in fact does not even lie, per the mandate of the proviso under Section 35(1).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 petition (MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 575 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.; order dated 07.02.2025) filed by tenants (Mrs. Mahmad Farhana and another) challenging the order dated 20.01.2025 whereby their stay application in an appeal against an eviction order (dated 07.10.2022) under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 was rejected. Held (paras 4-5): per Section 35(1) of the Act, no appeal shall lie unless the appellant pre-deposits 50% of the entire payable amount under the impugned order; the Act contains no provision entitling the Appellate Court to waive this pre-deposit in any manner; the petitioner's 50% pre-deposit admittedly not having been made, the appeal cannot be heard and in fact does not even lie, and consequently there is no question of grant of any interim order. The petition was dismissed, with a further direction that the appeal shall not be heard unless the prescribed 50% is deposited.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8096

Court No. - 7

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 575 of 2025

Petitioner :- Mrs. Mahmad Farhana And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2 . The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.01.2025 whereby the stay application filed by the petitioner-tenant was rejected.

3 . The facts in brief are that an order of eviction was filed against the petitioner vide order dated 07.10.2022. The petitioner challenged the said order by means of an appeal under Section 35 of U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The appellate Court passed an order directing to deposit 50% of the amount decreed for entertaining the appeal vide order dated 29.11.2023. The said order was challenged by the

petitioner by approaching this Court. Before this

Court, the submission was made that the petitioner may be permitted to move a recall application, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 12.12.2023 holding that in case a recall application is filed, the District Judge shall pass a suitable order thereupon. Subsequently, an order came to be passed on 09.02.2024 whereby the appeal was registered and was posted for hearing on application C-32 on 17.02.2024. The application for interim relief has been rejected by means of the impugned order.

4 . The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that once the appeal was admitted , there was no question of rejection of stay application. He further argues that the appeal was admitted on the direction of this Court in the judgment dated 12.12.2023. He thus argues that impugned order is liable to be quashed and a direction may be issued for deciding the appeal and as an interim measure, the recovery in pursuance of the order on appeal should be stayed.

5 . The said contention of the counsel for the petitioner merits rejection on the sole reason that

in terms of the provisions of Section 35(1) of U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 itself specifically provided that no appeal shall lie unless the appellant pre-deposits 50% of the entire payable amount under the impugned order. Admittedly, pre deposit of 50% amount has not been done. There is no provision for waiver of the said pre deposit of 50%, entitling the Appellate Court to waive the pre deposit in any manner. In the absence of any pre deposit, the appeal cannot be heard and in fact not even lie in terms of the mandate of proviso under Section 35(1) of U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act once the appeal itself does not lie unless the amount is deposited as prescribed. There is no question of grant of any interim order. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed. It is further directed that the appeal shall not be heard unless the 50% of the amount as prescribed under the proviso is deposited.

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Arun

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench