( 1 ) THIS is an application by the defendants to obtain from us a certificate to the effect that the appeal which they propose to prefer to the Supreme Court satisfies the requirements of Article 133 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THERE is a big and costly building of a cinema house in Collectorganj at Kanpur. Its value at present exceeds Rs. 20,000 /-, and it is the common case of the parties that, at all material times, it has exceeded Rs. 20,000/ -. In other words, from the commencement of the lease, to be shortly mentioned, till now it has been worth considerably more than Rs. 20,000/ -.

( 3 ) THE applicants obtained a lease of this cinema house from the opposite party. Sometime later, the opposite party brought a suit for the applicants ejectment from that building. Before instituting the suit he had obtained from the District Magistrate of Kanpur permission under section 3, U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947) to institute the suit. The plea in defence was that permission was not valid and therefore the suit was not maintainable. This plea was upheld by the learned Civil Judge who dismissed the suit on that ground alone. On appeal, this Court held that the permission given by the District Magistrate was valid. The appeal was, therefore, allowed and the applicants ejectment was ordered.

( 4 ) ARTICLE 133 (1) of the Constitution consists of three sub-clauses. It is not the applicants case that their case comes under Sub-clause (a) for the obvious reason that the valuation of the suit in the court of first instance was below Rs. 20,000/ -. They however, maintain that their case falls under Sub-clause (b) which runs as follows: "that the judgment, decree or final order involves directly or indirectly some claim or Question respecting property of the like amount or value;"

( 5 ) THE first point that has been argued before us is that the phrase "of the like amount or value" qualifies not the word "property" but the words "some claim or question". In other words, it is argued that the claim, or question should be valued at Rs. 20,000/- or more and not that the property to which the said claim or question relates should be worth Rs. 20,000/ -. This contention is not acceptable to us. On the plain reading of the words, according to ordinary Rules of grammar, the phrase "of the like amount or value" coming immediately after the word "property" qualifies the said word. Apart from that, there is an authority of this Court that, if the property to which the claim or question relates is worth Rs. 20,000/-, the requirements of this sub-clause are satisfied. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of --nadir Husain v. Municipal Board, Agra, air 1937 All 169 (A ). In that case a claim had been made for the recovery of Rs. 7,625/-, but this amount was to be recovered by the sale of certain immoveable property which was charged with this sum. The court held that if the property of which the sale was to take place was worth Rs. 10,000/- or more, the requirements of this sub-clause would be satisfied. It may be mentioned at this stage that the decision was given prior to the coming into force of the Constitution and at that time Rs. 10,000/-and not Rs. 20,000/- was the limit. It was further held that it was possible that after the sale of the property and payment of the decretal amount to the decree-holder the balance would be paid to the owner of the property, i. e. , the defendant. But still it was held that the property involved was the entire property which was to be sold and, if that was worth Rs. 10,000/- or more, the requirements of law were satisfied. The test applied was that the property which was involved should have been worth Rs. 10,000/or more notwithstanding the fact that the claim was not of that value.

( 6 ) ANOTHER point which is noteworthy is that, while under Sub-clause (a) it is the "subject matter of the dispute" which should be worth Rs. 20,000/-or more, it is the "property"