S HARKISHAN SINGH Vs. S MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tenant, who is under orders of eviction from the premises occupied by him, has presented this petition under Article 133 of the Constitution for a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the landlord admits that the case involves the decision of a substantial question of law of great general importance, but he says that we should decline to grant the certificate of fitness as the rent of the premises is only about Rs. 20/- per mensem and it is inequitable that the landlord should be compelled to incur expenditure in defending the appeal to the Supreme Court. Our attention has been invited to Richard Spooner v. Juddo, 4 Moo Ind App 353 (PC), where Lord Langdale observed as follows;

(3.) THE High Courts in this country were naturally reluctant to grant leave for appeal to the Privy council when the expenses to be incurred by the respondent in defending the appeal in England were completely out of proportion to the amount involved in the litigation. But the venue of appeals has now been shifted from London to New Delhi and a person who was unable to defend an appeal in the Privy Council owing to the enormity of expenditure may find little or no difficulty in defending it in the Supreme Court. The expenses incurred by a litigant in the Punjab in prosecuting or defending an appeal in-the supreme Court are not much more than the expenses incurred by him for a similar purpose in chandigarh. It seems to me therefore that when a case involves the decision of a substantial question of law and when that decision is likely to affect a large number of persons, this Court would not be justified in declining to grant a certificate of fitness on the ground only that some expenditure is likely to be incurred by the respondent.