JUDGMENT Debi Prasad Sircar-I, J. : In this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India an order passed by Calcutta District Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Case No. 116 of 1994 before that Forum under s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been challenged. 2. The petitioners in this revisional application are the absolute owners of the premises situated at 20A, Monoharpukur Road, P. S. Lake, Calcutta 700029 and the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7 are the tenants under them. The said opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7 submitted a petition before Calcutta District Forum in C. D. F. Case No. 116 of 1994 against proforma opposite parties Nos. 8 to 9 that is M/s. CESC Ltd. and its District Engineer (South) claiming that the said opposite parties should be directed to install meters separately for each of the tenants impleaded as the opposite parties Nos.3 to 7 in that premises at 20A, Monoharpukur Road, P. S. Lake, Calcutta 700 029 for facilitating consumption of electricity by each such tenant uninterruptedly. Subsequently, the owners-petitioners were impleaded in that case as opposite parties in order to facilitate installation of the meters separately for each of the tenants. The present petitioners raised objection against such prayer as there were already two meters from which the tenants were being supplied with powers for their consumption and the space at the place did not provide any scope for installation for meters. The present petitioners also alleged that the tenants did never have the habit of payment of charges for electricity consumed by them and the house owners had to face much troubles and swallow many abuses for their attempt to realise the dues fro(T1 the tenants. An arrangement was made amicably that one meter should be installed in the name of the petitioner No. 1 in that CDF case from which the tenants would be supplied with electricity. But the tenants even after that agreement instituted the case in utter violation of the agreement the matter on 12.4. An arrangement was made amicably that one meter should be installed in the name of the petitioner No. 1 in that CDF case from which the tenants would be supplied with electricity. But the tenants even after that agreement instituted the case in utter violation of the agreement the matter on 12.4. 94 in part and fixed it for further hearing on 5.5.94 but surprisingly without hearing the petitioners further on 5.5.94 that is on the fixed date for further hearing, the Forum passed its verdict on 4.5.94 abruptly disposing of the matter and directing the CESC to install the meters as claimed by the tenants. The Officer-in-charge, Lake Police Station was directed to provide protection for such installation. The aggrieved house owners filed this petition for revision of that order of the Forum on the aforesaid ground. 3. Both the parties contest the matter. The learned advocate for the tenants-opposite parties submits that the Act, namely, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a complete• Act providing hierarchy for the Forums and making adequate provision for appeals before the Forum with the higher authorities and as such Art. 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. The learned Advocate for the petitioner argues that although the District Forum fixed the matter for further hearing on 5.5.94 it abruptly delivered the verdict on 4.5.94 and thereby it has offended natural justice for which the provision of Art. 227 of the Constitution can be attracted as the Act does not provide any such provision in it. The learned advocate for the opposite party argues that case in the District Forum was filed under s. 12, of the Act -an s. 15 of the Act provides for appeal against any wrong order passed by the District Forum against any erroneous order by the State Commission as provided under s. 15 of the Act an aggrieved person has been given the benefit of moving the National Commission under s. 19, of the Act and against any order of the National Commission an aggrieved person is entitled to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court under s. 23, of the Act. As the Act provides for redressal of the grievance by the superior Tribunal, there is no scope for attracting Art. 227 of the Constitution. As the Act provides for redressal of the grievance by the superior Tribunal, there is no scope for attracting Art. 227 of the Constitution. In support of his contention the learned advocate for the opposite party relies on the ruling reported in 1995(2) CLJ 218 , (1995) 1 CLJ 124 and Biswanath alias Deb Kumar Pathak vs. Shyamal Kumar Pathak & Ors., 1995 WBLR (Cal) 7: (1995) 1 CLJ 139 . He argues that in all those cases this Court has repeatedly held that in identical cases Art. 227 of the Constitution cannot be attracted. 4. I have gone through the ruling and the record. Although the petitioners claimed that their right to natural justice was offended by an abrupt order on 4.5.94, and that the matter was left part heard and that fixed for further hearing on 5.5.94, this allegation has not been established satisfactorily before this Court, as the petitioners have not produced any document to show that the matter was left part heard on 12.4.94 and any date for further hearing was fixed on 5.5.94. Hence, the point for violation of natural justice has not been substantiated. Taking into consideration the rulings relied upon by the learned advocate for the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7 and without any contrary ruling cited before me I cannot but hold that in this case Art. 227 cannot be attracted as the Act which provides definite forum for appeal and for settlement of the grievance against the order of District Forum. 5. Accordingly, the revisional application should be and is rejected. 6. Parties to bear their own costs for this revisional case. S.P. Revisional application rejected.