JUDGMENT Sidheswar Narayan, J. This petition under s. 115 of the CPC has been preferred against an Order dated 15.11.94 passed by the Rent Controller, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas in Rent Control Case No. 6A/ 1992-93, whereby a decision was taken that the tenant/opposite party will repair the premise9 under tenancy whatever may be necessary and, for that repair, the landlord/petitioner will pay Rs. 1,500/- only in one lump sum by first week of January, 1995. 2. The impugned order is as brief as just to narrate the above direction and, accordingly, on the very face of it, it is obvious that the tenant/ O.P. had been given a liberty to make all repairs whichever were deemed necessary by him and further that a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,500/had been determined by way of compensation for those repairs without reference to any estimate to be prepared before hand. The provision of law as made under s. 34 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 enjoins upon the Rent Controller to give permission to make any repair only on the basis of an estimate of the cost either to be submitted by the tenant or any such estimate prepared on the direction of the Controller and also after giving the landlord an opportunity of being heard while considering such estimate of the cost. In the instant case it appears that on an earlier occasion the Rent Controller had passed an Order for certain repairs to be made and completed by 15.11.93, as per the estimate submitted by the Sub-Divisional Assistant Engineer, R.W.S., Diamond Harbour of the Block concerned. Such an Order had been passed on 2.9.93. Pursuant to this Order there were certain repairs already made by the petitioner/landlord but those were not to the satisfaction of the tenant/o.p. for one or the other reason and, therefore, there was yet another move made by the tenant for some more repairs. On such a move at the instance of the petitioner, the Rent Controller passed an Order date 3.12.93 to make further enquiry into the matter of the repairs by the said Sub-Divisional Assistant Engineer; and thereupon a report bearing memo No. 1101 dated 4.1.94 was submitted whereby, 'it was pointed out that certain repairs had been, of course, made but some other required repairs were not up to the mark. A point of emphasis may be mentioned here that this report did not make it clear as to what would be the estimate of cost of further repairs, which were required. It is significant to note that inspite of there being no further estimate of cost of repair the impugned order was passed with twofold directions that the tenant would make the repairs whatever it would be necessary and that the landlord would pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,500/-. Since the impugned order was not based on any estimate of cost as required under s. 34 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, there was a necessity for the landlord/petitioner to come up with the instant revision petition and "it would not be out of place to observe that the grievance of the landlord/petitioner was not unreasonable that it was not based on the procedure laid down under s. 34 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Here a question, however, arises whether this grievance could be redressed in a proceeding under s. 115 of the CPC as has been preferred before this Court through the instant revision petition. 3. A definite answer to the above question would be that the impugned order of the Rent Controller would be deemed to be a final order and that an appeal would lie against such order as clearly laid down in s. 29 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The instant revision petition having been preferred under s. 115 of the CPC was not entertain able in the eye of law. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner orally submitted that the instant petition may be converted into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; and the necessary rectification of correction of the grievances be made in the instant proceeding in itself. Here it would be apt to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1995(1), Calcutta Law Journal, 124, which is based on the decisions reported in AIR 1977, Supreme Court, 1703, AIR 1976, Supreme Court, 2446 and AIR 1992, Supreme Court 2279. Here it would be apt to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1995(1), Calcutta Law Journal, 124, which is based on the decisions reported in AIR 1977, Supreme Court, 1703, AIR 1976, Supreme Court, 2446 and AIR 1992, Supreme Court 2279. The legal proposition has been set at rest that where an alternative remedy is a suitable solution available on the terms of the statute itself, the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by way of writ petition may not be appropriate and proper. For this reason, T do not consider, it would be proper even to entertain the instant revision petition after converting it into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The landlord/petitioner have had such remedial recourse open to ventilate his grievance before the Appellate Forum as provided under s.29 of the aforesaid Act. Be 'it mentioned that if there has been any delay in preferring the appeal, the petitioner may take recourse of condonation of the delay under s. 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. For the reasons, aforesaid, the instant revision petition is not entertainable before this Court and, accordingly, it is dismissed with the observations as above. Application dismissed.