A certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India will not be granted unless the case involves a substantial question of law or raises considerations of great public importance.

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. :- This is an application for a certificate under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was prosecuted in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, Bombay, for offences under S. 18(1) and S. 19(2), Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act (Bom Act LVII (57) of 1947). At the trial a charge was framed against him under bath the aforesaid sections. The learned Magistrate held that on the facts proved the petitioner was guilty of the offence under S. 19(2) of the said Act. He accordingly convicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a day and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000. In default he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for sis weeks. Against this order of conviction and sentence the petitioner preferred an appeal to this Court, but the said appeal was summarily dismissed on 20th February 1950. The petitioner now wants a certificate under Art. 134(1)(c) that his case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. The facts alleged against the accused are not disputed before us, but it is argued by Mr. Dalai that the question which he proposes to raise in his appeal before the Supreme Court is whether on the facts proved the petitioner could be said to have committed the offence under S. 19(2). Mr. Dalals argument is that his client cannot be said to have relinquished his tenancy in favour of the complainant, because the word relinquishment must necessarily mean surrender of the tenancy in favour of the landlord; and since the prosecution case is that the tenancy was surrendered in favour of a stranger by the accused, he could not be said to have relinquished his tenancy and as such no offence under S. 19(2) can be said to have been proved in this case. Mr. Dalai contends that this is a matter of the construction of S. 19 of Bombay Act LVII [57] of 1947 and his case can therefore be certified to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. Mr. Dalai has also mentioned that there are two other points which he seeks to raise in this appeal. He argues that S. 4(1) applies to the premises in question and, as such he could not be said to be guilty under S. 19 even if it is held that he has relinquished his tenancy to the complainant after accepting consideration. There is no substance whatever in this point because it is clear that the premises in question do not fall under the protection of S. 4(1) of the Act. Mr. Dalai has also suggested that though it may be illegal to accept consideration for relinquishment validly made by the tenant, it would be no offence to accepts such consideration for relinquishment which is contrary to law. We have no doubt that this argument also is without any substance. The question which, therefore, falls to be decided in this case is whether we would be justified in granting a certificate under Art. 134(1)(c) because a point is raised as to the construction S. 19 of Bombay Act LVII (57) of 1947. It is no doubt a question of law, and if a certificate could properly be granted under Art. 134(1)(c) if a point of law arises in the appeal, Mr. Dalai would clearly be entitled to such a certificate.

3. The appellate powers of the Supreme Court are dealt with in Arts. 132 to 136 of the Constitution of India. Article 132 confers appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in civil, criminal or other proceedings where the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution itself. Article 133 deals with appeals in civil matters and it corresponds with Ss. 109 and 110, Civil P.C. except for the enhancement of the amount of Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000. Article 134 relates to criminal matters. Article 135 saves the jurisdiction and powers which were being exercised by the Federal Court immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, while Art. 136 gives jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in its discretion to grant special leave to appeal in cases decide