S. K. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been filed against the appellate decree passed by learned Assistant District Judge, Second Court, Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 102 of 1992, affirming the judgment and decree passed in Second Munsiff, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 397 of 1988. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff/ appellant filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent. The plaintiff claimed ejectment from the premises in suit (House No. 83/3, Ballygunge Place) on the ground of bona fide required for self occupation. It was contended that the appellants are presently residing at Premises No. 83/2, Ballygunge Place, Calcutta, which is owned by the uncle of plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs are licensees in that premises and are suffering from shortage of space. Plaintiffs have no other reasonably suitable accommodation. The tenancy of the defendant was determined by a notice dated 4th June, 1988 but the defendant failed to vacate the premises. Hence the suit. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT himself did not sign and verify the written statement but it has been done by his constituted Attorney Shri Sushil Chowdhury. According to written statement, the plaintiffs' ownership to the suit premises was denied. It was alleged that the adjacent house being premises No. 83/2, Ballygunge Place belongs to plaintiffs that plaintiffs do not require the suit premises for their occupation. ( 4 ) THE learned Munsiff dismissed the suit and held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the premises No. 83/2, Ballygunge Place does not belong to them. They have not filed any title deed in respect of the said premises. The preliminary burden prove absence of alternative reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere lied on the plaintiffs which they failed to discharge. ( 5 ) IT was further held that the plaintiffs were formerly residing at 5, Jitendra Mohan Avenue. No rent receipts had been filed to prove that the plaintiffs occupied premises No. 5, Jitendra Mohan Avenue as a tenants. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC. The appellate court rejected the application and dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal. ( 7 ) WHILE admitting the appeal on 6. 9. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC. The appellate court rejected the application and dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal. ( 7 ) WHILE admitting the appeal on 6. 9. 1993, the learned Division Bench of this court did not formulate questions on which the appeal has to be heard. However, I invoke my powers under proviso to sub-section (5) of section 100 CPC (See 1997 (5) SCC 438 ) and proceed to decide the appeal only on the point of rejection of application filed under Order 41 rule 27 CPC. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the rejection of appellants applications under Order 41 rule 27 CPC was illegal. Rule 27 of Order 41 of the CPC runs thus: "production of additional evidence in appellate court.- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court. But if- (A)the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (AA) the party seeking to produce additional evidence establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at that time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (B)the appellate court requires any document to be produced, or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the appellate court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the court shall record for its admission. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the court shall record for its admission. " ( 9 ) WHEN the trial court disbelieved the plaintiffs' oral evidence because of non-production of the title deed relating to premises No. 83/2, Ballygunge Place and the rent receipts in respect of premises No. 5, Jatindra Mohan Avenue, it became essential for the plaintiffs, to prove the original deed of conveyance in respect of premises No. 83/2, Ballygunge Place, and the certified copy of the municipal assessment record, the original rent receipts and acknowledgement of surrender in respect of premises No. 5, Jitendra Mohan Avenue. These documents were certainly necessary in order to p pronounce the judgment in the appeal and are covered by Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 27 of Order 41 CPC. ( 10 ) THE apex court in case of Smt. Sarada v. Manikkoth Kombbi [ (1996)8 SCC 345 ] held that the rejection of an application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC was bad if without receipt of documents and the evidence in consideration thereof, it would not be possible to render fair justice between the parties. It is true that the plaintiffs ought to have filed these documents in the trial court at an appropriate stage it must also be remembered that courts exist for dispensing justice and not for enforcing discipline. The learned single Judge of this court in case of Adhir Kumar v. Smt. Juthika Sen ( AIR 1981 Cal 334 relied on AIR 1931 PC 143) and held that under rule 27 (1) (b) of Order 41 CPC a court can accept additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause provided it should have direct an important bearing on the main issue in the case. In case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy [ (1994)4 SCC 659 ]. It was held thus:"it is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received exercising the power under Order 41, rule 27 CPC the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. " ( 11 ) I, therefore, hold that the learned appellate Judge did commit error in rejecting the appellants' application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants further urged that this court should set aside the findings recorded by the court below on the question of reasonable requirement since the approach of the courts below was perverse. Reliance has been placed on the case of Ratanlal v. Kishorilal Goenka (AIR 1996 Cal 144 ). I do not propose to go into this question since the matter requires to be remanded, after allowing the application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC. The application is allowed. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY the appeal also is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to learned Second Assistant District Judge, Alipore (Now Second Court of Civil Judge, Senior Judge at Alipore) under Order 41 rule 23-A, CPC with a direction to re-admit the appeal under its original number and to proceed to determine the appeal after permitting the plaintiffs to tender the documents enumerated in their application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC and to prove them by oral evidence, if necessary. The learned first appellate court shall also permit the defendant to lead evidence in rebuttal. the learned first appellate court shall record oral evidence himself, without remanding the case to the trial court and shall dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of record of him. There will be no order as to costs in this court. The record be sent down within 10 days. No decree need be drawn up. Record be set through special messenger at the cost of the appellant. Cost be deposited within 5 days. Appeal allowed