JUDGMENT : 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. 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.