( 1 ) THIS revision comes before us on a reference made by one of us (Pandey J.) for resolving the difference of opinion which has been expressed in two Division Bench decisions of this Court on the questions of relevancy and admissibility of certain documents.

( 2 ) THE material facts, shortly stated, are these: the applicants, who occupy two ground floor rooms of the non applicants' house No. 131 of Imli Bazar, Indore, in return for a monthly rent of Rs. 20 besides electricity charges, filed a suit under Section 9 (4)of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, for fixation of the reasonable annual rent. The non-applicants resisted the claim made in that suit. Relying upon certified copies of the relevant entries in the assessment Note Book (Ex P-12-A) and the Assessment List Register (Ex. P-13) and the oral evidence of the Assessment Officer, R. S. Date p. W. 3, the Rent Controlling Authority held that, in 1940-41, the rent of the accommodation was Rs. 6/- only and fixed Rs. 10. 70 as the reasonable monthly rent. The non-applicants appealed against that order which was set aside by the Third Additional District Judge Indore, for the following reasons: (i) The entry in the Assessment Note Book relating to house no. 131 of Imli Bazar was only a report containing the proposal on the basis of which the final assessment was subsequently made by the competent authority. Proof of that entry by the oral evidence of R. S. Date P. W. 3 did not augment its probative value (ii) The copy of the relevant entry in the Assessment List register, Ex. P-13, could not be regarded as legal evidence of the rent "as shown in the Municipal Assessment Register" because it did not mention the name of the authority who made it and the seal, if any, affixed thereto. (iii) The evidence of Hukumchand P. W. 1 did not establish that he occupied the accommodation in 1940-41 or paid therefor rs. 6/-or Rs. 6/8/- as monthly rent. (iv) There was thus no evidence to show that the rent paid by the applicants was, in comparison with the reasonable annual rent, excessive being aggrieved the applicants moved this Court for relief under Article 227 of the Constitution. They were, however, allowed to convert the petition into an application for revision under Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure. The revision came up for hearing on 14 August 1963. It was noticed that there was a divergence of opinion on the questions of relevancy of the entries in the Assessment Note Book and the admissibility of what purported to be certified copies of entries in the assessment List Register and this reference was then made

( 3 ) IN Lala Nandlal v. Smt. Sushilabai, Misc. Petn. No. 76 of 1959 D/- 18-1-1961 (MP) a Division Bench of this Court stated as follows: "the only question therefore is whether Ex. P-2 so-called certified copy of the assessment list register is legal evidence that in 1941 the assessment fixed by the appropriate authority of the Municipality was this amount shown in it. As it stands it is not Shri Kulkarni has only argued that the plaintiff did that he was expected to do and had even brought the 'original' of the assessment list register before the rent controlling authority. He had, in addition, actually examined the officer who at that time wrote 'the assessment note book' which was the basis of the assessment. The argument is, in my opinion, fallacious Whenever a new assessment is made, the appropriate officer of the local authority goes out, collects material and makes a report that the assessment may be so much. This was done in Ex. P-1 which was, no doubt, prepared by the proper officer and has been proved. Certainly, this is to be taken into account hut the assessment properly so called does not automatically follow this report. This is only a proposal en the part of the local authority to the authority or tribunal finallyfixing the assessment, that it, usually an assessment committee that looks into this report on the one hand, h