NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law (1) Whether the two Courts below are right, in law, in placing reliance on Exhibits P. 15 to P. 17, though evidence in proof of the contents of the same has not been adduced? (2) Whether the two Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence of d. W. 3 - a junior engineer, who has issued certificate Exhibit D. 3 with reference to Exhibit D. 4, a copy of the mangalore Taluk map, to the effect that the suit property is within three kilometres from the limits of Mangalore Corporation in the light of item no. 1 of Schedule II of Karnataka Rent control Act? ( 2 ) AS the respondents have entered caveatand are represented by Sri B. V. Acharya and further as Sri B. V. Acharya requested that the appeal may be remanded to the trial Court in view of the simple fact that the evidence of D. W. 3 has not been considered bearing in mind the principle contained in item No. 1 of Schedule II of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appeal is heard on merits. ( 3 ) THIS is defendant's appeal. The respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit for possession of the suit schedule property and for recovery of arrears of rent. The trial Court decreed the suit and the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. ( 4 ) THE main contention of the appellant-defendant is that the suit property is situated within three kilometres from the Mangalore Corporation limits and therefore, is attracted by the provisions in Section 21 of the Act. ( 5 ) THE plaintiffs relied on Exhibits P. 15 to P. 17 to establish that the suit premises was beyond three kilometres. The defendant-appellant relied upon the evidence of D. W. 3 and the certificate issued by him at Exhibit D. 3 with reference to exhibit D. 4 to establish that the suit premises is within the distance of three kilometres. ( 6 ) THE result of the case hangs only on this material. The defendant-appellant relied upon the evidence of D. W. 3 and the certificate issued by him at Exhibit D. 3 with reference to exhibit D. 4 to establish that the suit premises is within the distance of three kilometres. ( 6 ) THE result of the case hangs only on this material. The trial Court rejected the evidence of D. W. 3 and concluded that even on the basis of the evidence of D. W. 3 the suit premises was beyond the distance of three kilometres and therefore, the contents of Exhibits P. 15 to P. 17 were correct. The lower appellate Court has endorsed the very view without dealing with the evidence of D. W. 3 afresh. ( 7 ) EXHIBIT P. 15 is the certificate said to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Mangalore, in response to the application filed by the plaintiffs requesting him to issue a certificate i. e. , regarding the distance between the suit premises and the Mangalore Corporation limits. Exhibit p. 16 is the certificate said to have been issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, No. 1 Sub-Division, mangalore, on a similar request being made to him by the Plaintiffs. Exhibit P. 17 is the certificate said to have been issued by the assistant Director of Land Records, Mangalore sub-Division, on a similar request made by the plaintiffs. ( 8 ) IT is seen from the records that when Exhibits P. 15 to P. 17 were to be admitted in evidence, objection was raised on the ground that they are not admissible in evidence and the contents are not proved. The trial Court marked them as Exhibits P. 15 to P. 17 reserving its conclusion on the question of admissibility and proof. No evidence was adduced in proof of the contents of Exhibits P. 15 to P. 17. The trial court has, in paragraph 17 of its Judgment, observed as follows: "though these certificates have not been proved, in the light of the evidence of d. W. 3, it can be safely held that the contents of Exhibits P. 15 to P. 17 certificates are true and correct. ( 9 ) IT is plain that Exhibits P. 15 to P. 17 having been issued at the instance of the plaintiffs, cannot be regarded as covered by the provisions of Section 80 of the Indian Evidence act. ( 9 ) IT is plain that Exhibits P. 15 to P. 17 having been issued at the instance of the plaintiffs, cannot be regarded as covered by the provisions of Section 80 of the Indian Evidence act. Therefore, proof of the contents of Exhibits p. 15 to P. 17 became mandatory and that is wanting. In that view of the matter, the trial Court ought not to have looked into the contents of these documents. The lower appellate Court also ought not to have looked into the contents of these documents. ( 10 ) THE trial Court has analysed the evidence of D. W. 3 and has come to the conclusion that when D. W. 3 measured the distance with reference to Exhibit D. 4, in Court, it was found that the distance from one point of the Corporation limits to the suit property was 4. 2 kilometres as per the aerographic distance from the southern side of Kenjar village, where there is Corporation boundary, and the southern side of Survey No. 95, on which the suit premises stands. It is on this basis it concluded in favour of the plaintiffs. ( 11 ) IN paragraph 16 of its Judgment, the trial Court has adverted to the fact how the main road has been shown in Exhibit P. 4 - village map of Bajpe, and how the said road runs on the northern side of Survey No. 95 and the further fact that no road has been situated on the southern side of Survey No. 95 or anywhere near the southern half of Survey No. 95. Therefore, it is plain that the two Courts below have directed themselves to this aspect of the matter by taking into consideration the lay of the road from the corporation limits to the suit schedule property. ( 12 ) ITEM No. 1 of Schedule II of the Act reads as follows:-"areas within the limits of cities under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and the area within a radius of three kilometres from the limits of the said cities. "what is clearly meant by this item is that the suit schedule property should be taken as the centre and the radius of the circle to be drawn should be taken as three kilometres and a circle drawn. "what is clearly meant by this item is that the suit schedule property should be taken as the centre and the radius of the circle to be drawn should be taken as three kilometres and a circle drawn. If any part of the circle touches any point of the concerned Corporation limits, then the property can, in law, be said to lie within a radius of three kilometres from the limits of the said cities. This principle has not been applied by the two Courts below, while considering the evidence of D. W. 3, as is clear from the reasoning narrated in the prececding paragraphs. In fact, i find that as the contents of Exhibits P. 15 to p. 17 stand and the evidence of D. W. 3 appears on record, this position, in law, does not appear to have been borne in mind. Therefore, there is want of material evidence, which relates to the jurisdictional fact. The material on record is not at all sufficient to record a finding on this aspect. Fresh material has to be produced. It, therefore, be just and reasonable to afford opportunity to both ihc sides to produce fresh material. ( 13 ) IN view of the foregoing, this appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below are set aside. In exercising the powers conferred under the Code of Civil Procedure under Order 41, Rule 23-A, this matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to afford reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce fresh evidence, in addition to the evidence already adduced, and then proceed to dispose of the suit according to law. The parties are at liberty to re-examine the witnesses they had already examined. The evidence already on record and the evidence so gathered shall be the evidence that is to be taken into consideration for the disposal of the suit. ( 14 ) THE trial Court is further directed to register the suit in its original number and proceed to dispose of the same. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 9-6-1986. ( 15 ) NO order as to costs throughout. The appellant is entitled to the refund of the Court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .