The interpretation of 'legality', 'regularity', and 'propriety' in statutory provisions influences the scope of jurisdiction conferred by the Act and can lead to a broader or narrower application of the law.

1. This petition challenges the validity of the judgment of the District Judge of Kozhikode dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. 103 of 1962. That petition was filed by the petitioner before us under S.20 of

the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1959.

2. The dismissal of the petition was essentially based on a narrow construction of S.20. All that the District Judge did was to follow Kelu Nedungadi v. Superintendent Fisheries Technological Station 1957 KLT. 335, a decision under the analogous provision - S.12-B - of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949.

3. Another decision taking a narrow view of the revisional jurisdiction is the decision in O.P. No. 2440 of 1963. That decision dealt with S.20 itself.

4. Between the two decisions mentioned above there were three other decisions on the subject, Ramankutty v. Ittiachan 1960 KLT. 895, Vittal Das Rao v. Muthugopal 1960 KLT. 1383 and the decision in O.P. No. 411 of 1963. Of these the first and the last dealt with S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959; and the second, with S.12-B of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. All these three decisions took a wider view of the jurisdiction conferred by the section concerned.

5. The extent of a jurisdiction naturally depends on the wording of the section that confers that jurisdiction. The relevant portion of S.20 reads as follows:

"In cases where the appellate authority empowered under S.18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit."

6. The crucial words are "legality", "regularity" and "propriety" occurring in the section. The ambit of the jurisdiction depends on the meaning of these words.

7. "Legality" and "regularity" are familiar terms in the conferment of the powers of intervention. An order is illegal, if it is opposed to an enactment; an order is irregular, if it is opposed to a rule of procedure. The word "propriety" is of wider import. The Oxford English Dictionary - Volume VIII - says that it means "fitness, appropriateness, aptitude, suitability; appropriateness to the circumstances or conditions; conformity with requirement, rule or principle; right-ness, correctness, justness, accuracy."

8. The Motor Vehicles (Madras Amendment) Act, 1948, introduced the following provision as S.64-A, into the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:

"The State Government may, of its own motion or on application made to it, call for the records of any order passed or proceeding taken under this chapter by any authority or officer subordinate to it, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceeding and after examining such records, may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit."

This section came up for consideration in Roman and Roman Ltd. v. State of Madras AIR. 1956 SC. 463. The Court said:

"In clothing the State Government with such power the legislature clearly intended the State Government to decide the issue as to whether any order in question was illegal, irregular or improper;"

quoted the definition of the word "propriety" in the Oxford English Dictionary, and observed:

"If the State Government was of the opinion that respondent 2 had better facilities for operation than the appellant and their service to the public would be more beneficial, it could not be said that the State Government was in error in thinking that the order of the Board confirming the order of the Regional Transport Authority was improper."

9. S.13 (3) (a)( iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949, provided that a landlord may apply to the