# Mayank Mittal v. District Judge & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 261
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-15
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4307 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mayank-mittal-v-district-judge-anr-54569
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Tenancy Law - U.P. Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Section
35(1) - U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises
Tenancy Rules, 2021 - Rule 6, Rule 12 -
Pre-deposit for Appeal - Petitioner challenged
Rent Tribunal's order dated 11.03.2024 directing
pre-deposit of 50% of payable amount with
Rent Authority before pressing appeal - Held,
Section 35(1) mandates pre-deposit for appeal
to be maintainable, and expression "no appeal
shall lie" implies deposit with Rent Authority, not
Rent Tribunal - Rule 6 provides mechanism for
deposits, applicable to pre-deposits for appeals
- No provision in Act or Rules specifies deposit
with Rent Tribunal - Impugned order directing
deposit with Rent Authority upheld - No
illegality warranting interference under Article
226 - Petitioner granted liberty to seek
preponement of appeal hearing to avoid
execution of eviction order. (Para 9-13, 15)

Writ petition dismissed.

## Text

4 All. Mayank Mittal Vs. District Judge & Anr.
261
the exercise of that power after the /apse of
17 year by the Director of Education under
Section
16E(10),
on
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case can be said to be
exercise of a power within a reasonable
time. In our opinion, the order of the
Regional Inspec-tress of Girls Schools
referring the matter to the Director of
Education under Section 16E(10) is thus
liable to be quashed."
(emphasis added)

13. I have also gone through each
paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the State-respondents and sworn
by the District Inspector of Schools, Mau
and I do not find there to be any pleadings
qua fraud or misrepresentation committed
by the petitioner or the Manager of the
Committee of the Management. If any
fraud was committed in the office of the
District Inspector of Schools, it cannot be
presumed that it was at the instance of the
manager or the assistant teacher, the
petitioner in this case. All these facts
should have been brought to the notice of
the Regional Joint Director of Education
when the regularization of the petitioner's
service was being considered. Having not
done so, on mere apprehension or prima
facie view, such impugned orders cannot be
passed.

14. In view of the above writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
orders, passed by the Regional Joint
Director of Education dated 19.03.2020 and
the consequential order passed by the
District
Inspector
of
Schools
dated
20.03.2020, are hereby quashed. No order
as to cost.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 261
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ A No. 4307 of 2024

Mayank Mittal ...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nipun Singh, Sri Sumit Suri

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sundeep Agarwal

A. Tenancy Law - U.P. Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Section
35(1) - U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises
Tenancy Rules, 2021 - Rule 6, Rule 12 -
Pre-deposit for Appeal - Petitioner challenged
Rent Tribunal's order dated 11.03.2024 directing
pre-deposit of 50% of payable amount with
Rent Authority before pressing appeal - Held,
Section 35(1) mandates pre-deposit for appeal
to be maintainable, and expression "no appeal
shall lie" implies deposit with Rent Authority, not
Rent Tribunal - Rule 6 provides mechanism for
deposits, applicable to pre-deposits for appeals
- No provision in Act or Rules specifies deposit
with Rent Tribunal - Impugned order directing
deposit with Rent Authority upheld - No
illegality warranting interference under Article
226 - Petitioner granted liberty to seek
preponement of appeal hearing to avoid
execution of eviction order. (Para 9-13, 15)

Writ petition dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sundeep
Agarwal, learned counsel representing the
plaintiff-respondent no. 3.

2. The learned Standing Counsel has
accepted notice of the Writ Petition on
behalf of the State-Respondents.
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The instant Writ Petition at the
instance of the Tenant/petitioner has been
filed
for
quashing
the
order
dated
11.03.2024
passed
by
the
District
Judge/Rent Tribunal, District Gautam Budh
Nagar/Respondent no. 1, in Misc Case No.
58 of 2024 (Mayank Mittal Vs. Pooran Dev
Adlakha (Deceased) and others) so far as it
relates to the direction to deposit the predeposit 50% payable amount with the Rent
Authority-Respondent no. 2 and file the
receipt in the Appeal under Section 35 of
the UP Act No. 16 of 2021 and only
thereafter press the Appeal.

4. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner
that he is a tenant of the Respondent no. 3.
The Respondent no. 3 filed an Application
u/s 21 (2) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act 2021 (U.P. Act No.
16
of
2021)
before
the
Rent
Authority/Additional District Magistrate
(Finance and Revenue) District Gautam
Budh Nagar seeking the eviction of the
Petitioner as also for recovery of rent and
damages. The application u/s 21 (2)
registered as Case No. 72 of 2023 was
allowed vide judgment and order dated
26.02.2024
by
the
Rent
Authority
directing eviction of the petitioner and
further directing the petitioner to pay
twice the rent of first two months after
September, 2019 and thereafter to pay four
times of rent and vacating the premises
within 30 days.

5. The petitioner aggrieved by the
judgment and order of the Rent Authority
has preferred a Rent Appeal u/s 35 (1) of
the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. Section 35 (1)
of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021
contemplates pre-deposit of 50% of the
entire payable amount under the impugned
order of the Rent Authority, for the Appeal
to be entertainable.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner submitted the
Appeal to the Rent Tribunal along with a
Draft of Rs. 16,64,000/- (being 50% of the
total amount payable as ordered by the
Rent Authority under the order dated
26.02.2024 impugned in the Appeal) but
the Rent Tribunal did not accept the Draft
and passed the order dated 11.03.2024
(impugned in the present Writ Petition) to
deposit the amount before the Rent
Authority and file the receipt of the deposit
so made along with the Appeal. The Rent
Tribunal has not entertained the Appeal and
no number has been allotted to it but the
case has been registered as Misc. Case No.
58 of 2024. The petitioner has been
directed to press the Appeal only after
making the deposit before the Rent
Authority and has fixed the Appeal for
02.04.2024.

7. Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the Rent
Tribunal has committed manifest error of
law in refusing to accept the pre-deposit of
50% of the amount directed to be paid by
the Rent Authority. He submits that the
amount
being
a
precondition
for
maintainability of the Appeal was required
to be accepted by the Rent Tribunal. He has
invited the attention of this Court to the
provisions of Section 35 (1) of the Act as
also to Rule 12 of the U.P. Regulation of
Urban Premises Tenancy Rules 2021 to
demonstrate that there is no provision as to
where the amount of pre-deposit would be
payable. He also submits that the Form-9
under which the Appeal is to be preferred
also does not mention where the predeposit is to be made. It is further
contended that the Rent Authority under
the order dated 26.02.2024 sought to be
assailed in the Appeal preferred before the
Rent Tribunal had directed eviction of the
4 All. Mayank Mittal Vs. District Judge & Anr.
263
petitioner within 30 days. The Rent
Tribunal has fixed the Case on 02.04.2024
without hearing the Appeal. The Rent
Authority has become functus-officio after
passing the order dated 26.02.2024. If the
amount is not accepted by the Rent
Authority the petitioner would be evicted
even without his Appeal being heard and it
would be travesty of justice. It is thus
prayed that appropriate directions be
issued by this Court to the Rent Tribunal
to accept the Demand Draft bearing No.
460797 dated 07.03.2024 or in the
alternative prepone the date fixed by the
Rent Tribunal and direct the Respondent
No. 2 i.e. the Rent Authority to accept the
pre-deposit and issue the receipt thereof so
as to enable the petitioner to press his
Appeal.

8. Sri Sundeep Agarwal, learned
counsel for the Respondent No. 3 as also
the
learned
Standing
Counsel
have
submitted that the petitioner ought to have
carried out the direction under the
impugned order. They however could not
justify the directions contained in the
impugned order.

9. I have heard the learned counsels
for the parties and have perused the
record. I have also gone through the
provisions of the Act and the Rules framed
thereunder. It is not in dispute that Section
35 (1) of the Act, Rule 12 of the Rules as
also the Form-9 which is referable to Rule
12 (1) of the Rules is silent about before
whom the pre-deposit of the 50% of the
total payable amount as directed by the
Rent Authority is to be made. However a
perusal of the provisions of Section 35 (1)
of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 under which
the Appeal is to be instituted the legislature
in its wisdom has used the expression "no
appeal shall lie" in the proviso to the
section 35 (1). The relevant provision is
being quoted herewith :

35. Appeal to Rent Tribunal- (1)
"Any person aggrieved by an order
passed by the Rent Authority may prefer an
appeal along with a certified copy of such
order to the Rent Tribunal within the local
limits of which the premises is situated,
within a period of thirty days from the date
of that order:

Provided that no appeal shall lie
unless the appellant pre-deposits fifty
percent of the entire payable amount under
the impugned order of the Rent Authority."

10. In the opinion of the Court the
inclusion of the expression "no appeal shall
lie" necessarily means that the Appeal
could not be conceived in the absence of a
pre-deposit. Since the Appeal itself could
not be conceived the Rent Tribunal has no
role to play. This necessarily implies that
the pre-deposit is required to be deposited
with the Rent Authority whose order is
sought to be appealed against.

11. In this view of the matter the
impugned direction to make the deposit
before the Rent Authority and file the
receipt thereof along with the Memo of the
Appeal cannot be faulted.

12. In the opinion of the Court, there
is one other aspect of the matter. The Court
on the perusal of the Rule 6 of the U.P.
Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
Rules 2021 finds that the Rule provides a
elaborate mechanism for accepting deposit
of Rent and other charges referable to
Section 14 of the Act, 2021. Sub Rule 2 of
Rule 6 provides that such deposits can be
made by postal money order or on account
payee Cheque or by any digital mode in the
name of the Rent Authority, which amount
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is to be deposited by the Rent Authority in
a Saving Bank account opened by it in any
of the Nationalized Bank with due approval
of the Collector of the District and the Rent
Authority has been made solely responsible
for the proper and safe maintenance of such
account and the transactions therein. In the
opinion of the Court, the said mechanism
can very well be utilized for the purposes
of
accepting
the
pre-deposits
for
maintaining appeals before the Rent
Tribunal.

13. In view of the above the Court
finds no illegality or irregularity in the
impugned order dated 11.03.2024 directing
the pre-deposit of 50% payable amount
with the Rent Authority/Respondent No. 2
and file receipt in the Appeal u/s 35 of the
Act 2021 and only thereafter press the
Appeal warranting interference of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.

14. The Writ Petition lacks merit and
is accordingly dismissed.

15. However the Court finds that the
Rent Tribunal has fixed 02.04.2024 as the
date fixed for consideration of the Appeal
which falls beyond 30 days of the order of
the Rent Authority and there is every
likelihood of the order of the Rent
Authority being executed, under Section
36, even before the Appeal is heard. In
such circumstances the petitioner is granted
liberty to make the pre-deposit of 50% of
the total amount payable by the Demand
Draft No. 460797 dated 07.03.2024 obtain
the receipt thereof and file an application
seeking to prepone the date fixed by filing
an appropriate application in that regard. In
the eventuality of such an application being
made the learned District Judge/Rent
Tribunal Gautam Budh Nagar shall prepone
the date and proceed to entertain and hear
the Appeal on merits.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 264
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ A No. 4562 of 1998

Mohd. Asgar Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
H.G.S. Parihar, Nakul Dubey, PC Misra,
Shivam Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Rakesh Sharma, Deepanshu Dass, Dinesh
Kumar Pandey, IH Farooqui, Raj Kumar
singh, Sanjiv Srivastava

A.
Service
Law
-
Central
Industrial
Security Force (CISF) Rules, 1969 - Rule
7-A, Rule 29-A, Rule 34 - Constitutional
Law - Article 226 - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Natural Justice - Bias - Petitioner, a CISF
Constable, challenged removal order dated
04.12.1996, appellate order dated 01.08.1997,
and revisional order dated 24.06.1998 - Alleged
bias
of
Inquiry
Officer,
non-supply
of
documents, and lack of jurisdiction of Deputy
Commandant to appoint Inquiry Officer - Held,
Deputy Commandant competent as Disciplinary
Authority under Rule 7-A and Rule 29-A read
with Schedule II - No prejudice shown from
alleged bias or non-supply of documents -
Petitioner
participated
in
inquiry,
crossexamined witnesses, and received all requested
documents - Revisional powers of DG/CISF
validated by CISF (Amendment and Validation)
Act, 1999 - No violation of natural justice or
statutory rules - Punishment proportionate to
charges of dereliction of duty and indiscipline -
B.C. Chaturvedi Vs U.O.I., H. VS Nirmala Vs
Karnataka St. Financial Corporation, and Ex