Appellate remedy under rent control law remains available without prior deposit of admitted arrears, subject to compliance at hearing.

Section 20 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 does not make an appeal incompetent merely because the tenant has not first paid or deposited all admitted arrears of rent. Section 13(1) must be read with Sections 13(2), 13(3) and 20(4), preserving the appellate authority's power to quantify arrears, grant time for deposit, and halt proceedings for non-compliance without sufficient cause. The phrase "prefer an appeal" is construed as an effective invocation of the appellate remedy, not just the filing of a memorandum. The appeal was therefore maintainable without prior deposit and could not be rejected on that ground alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under Section 20 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 is incompetent unless the tenant first pays to the landlord or deposits with the appellate authority all arrears of rent admitted to be due.

Analysis: Section 13(1) applies both to contest before the Rent Control Court and to an appeal under Section 20, but its language must be read with Sections 13(2), 13(3) and 20(4) so that the appellate authority retains power to fix arrears, grant time for deposit and stop proceedings if there is non-compliance without sufficient cause. A literal reading of the words "admitted by the tenant to be due" would defeat the object of the provision and could allow a tenant to delay payment throughout the litigation while still preserving the right of appeal. The expression "prefer an appeal" in Section 20 is therefore not confined to the physical filing of a memorandum, but means an effective invocation of the appellate remedy. The statutory scheme permits the appeal to be filed without prior deposit, while payment and deposit requirements remain enforceable at the stage of hearing and interim relief.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable without prior payment or deposit of the admitted arrears of rent, and it could not be rejected on that ground alone.

---