Judgment Shambhu Prasad Singh, J. In this application filed under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' in this Judgment), the petitioner prays that the order of the court below by which it has taken cognizance against him be quashed. 2. There is a house in the town of Motihari in the name of the wife of the petitioner, a part whereof has been let out to the opposite party Tarkeshwar Kuer. On 20th of September, 1969, the opposite party filed a petition. This petition was addressed to the house Controller. According to the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in this Judgment), all Sub-divisional Officers are Controllers within their Jurisdiction. The date on which the opposite party filed his petition, Shri Shambhu Sharan Sinha, Honorary Magistrate, was incharge of the work of the Sub-divisional Officer. Though he was not a Controller under the Act, the petition was filed before him. In the petition, as typed, there was no reference to section 10 of the Act nor there was any prayer that the petitioner be proceeded with under section 20 of the Act. Subsequently it was added in one of the paragraphs of the petition by hand that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of section 10 of the Act. In the prayer portion it was also added by hand that the petitioner may be proceeded with under section 20 of the Act. After the petition was filed, the Honorary Magistrate examined Tarkeshwar Kuer on solemn affirmation and sent the petition to another Magistrate for enquiry. On receiving the enquiry report on 17th of November, 1969, the same Honorary Magistrate took cognizance of an offence under section 20 of the Act against the petitioner and sent the case to a Munsif Magistrate for disposal. The petitioner filed a petition before the Sessions Judge of Champaran praying that the case be referred to the High Court for quashing of the order of the Magistrate. On the prayer being rejected, he has filed this application before this Court. The petition has been filed within time from the date of the Magistrate's order as prescribed under the Limitation Act and, as said earlier, is directed against that order. 3. On the prayer being rejected, he has filed this application before this Court. The petition has been filed within time from the date of the Magistrate's order as prescribed under the Limitation Act and, as said earlier, is directed against that order. 3. The allegations of the opposite party, Tarkeshwar Kuer, in his petition are that he is a tenant under the petitioner and when he did not agree to the demand of the petitioner for enhancing the rent, the latter with intention to harass him cut water and electric connections from that portion of the house of which he is the tenant. This caused great inconvenience to him. According to the provisions of the Act, he was entitled to file the petition to get the water and electric connections restored by the petitioner. The rent which he pays to the petitioner is higher than proper rent. Even then the petitioner demands for enhancing the rent. Therefore, it is desirable that fair rent under the Act be fixed. 4. Mr. Shilesh Chandra Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has advanced the following arguments in support of the petition :- (1) Contravention of the provisions of section 10 of the Act is not an offence under section 20. Section 10 is complete in itself. For the contravention of its provisions only such actions can be taken which are mentioned in that section. Therefore, no criminal proceeding under section 20 can be started against the person who contravenes the provisions of section 10. (2) Before taking action against any person under the Act, the Controller must give notice as required by section 9. Because no notice has been served upon the petitioner, the proceedings under section 20 of the Act against him are illegal. (3) The Honorary Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offence against the petitioner either on 20th of September, 1969 or 11th of November, 1969. (4) The written allegations in the petition filed before the Magistrate or oral statement made by the petitioner cannot be said to be a complaint as defined in section 4 (h) of the Code. The cognizance taken by the Magistrate is illegal also on this ground. (5) Mr. Misra was not able to fully support his argument that the Honorary Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case on 20th of September, 1969 or 11th of November, 1969. The cognizance taken by the Magistrate is illegal also on this ground. (5) Mr. Misra was not able to fully support his argument that the Honorary Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case on 20th of September, 1969 or 11th of November, 1969. In the circumstances it is not necessary to consider this argument in detail. Shri Shambhu Sharan Sinha was specially empowered to take cognizance under section 190 (1) of the Code. He was also empowered by the District Magistrate under section 192 (2) of the Code to transfer enquiries and trials to other Magistrate. Therefore, the cognizance cannot be quashed on this ground. 6. Section 10 of the Act restricts the landlord from cutting or with-holding any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant without just and sufficient cause. Sub-Section (2) authorises the tenant to file petition before the Controller for restoration of the amenities if the landlord has contravened the provisions of sub-section (1). Sub-Section (3) lays down the law as to what is to be done by the Controller after a petition is filed before him by the tenant. Substance of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 20 is as follows :- (1) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions (excepting section 14) of the Act, he shall be punishable with imprisonment extending up to two years or with fine or with both. (2) Whoever fails to comply with any direction made or deemed to have been made under the Act, he shall be punishable with imprisonment extending up to one year or with fine or with both. It is clear from the reading of section 20 that even if no direction is issued under the Act, if any person contravenes any of the provisions of the Act, then he shall be punishable under sub-section (1) Section 10 sub-section (1) by itself lays down that no landlord can without just or sufficient cause cut or with-hold any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. Sub-sections (2) or (3) of that section cannot limit the meaning of sub-section (1) While subsection (1) prohibits the landlord from doing certain things, sub-section (2) entitles the tenant to make a petition before the Controller and sub-section (3) lays down the procedure to be followed by the controller. Sub-sections (2) or (3) of that section cannot limit the meaning of sub-section (1) While subsection (1) prohibits the landlord from doing certain things, sub-section (2) entitles the tenant to make a petition before the Controller and sub-section (3) lays down the procedure to be followed by the controller. In the circumstances if the landlord contravenes the restriction as laid down under section 10 (1), he can be punished under section 20 (1) of the Act. If the contravention of provisions of subsection (1) were not punishable under section 20 (1), then section 10 (2) would have been referred to in that section just as section 14 has been referred to therein. In my opinion, therefore, it is not possible to interpret section 20 (1) in such a way as to hold that it is not attracted to contravention of section 10 (1). 7. Section 19 of the Act provides for notice on the landlord or the tenant by the Controller before exercising any of the power; conferred upon him under the Act. If the Controller is not a Magistrate, then he cannot try an offence under section 20 of the Act. Any person may file a complaint petition relating to an offence under section 20 before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance even though he is not Controller and that Magistrate, if he thinks proper can take cognizance. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Misra that as no notice was given to the petitioner under section 19 of the Act, cognizance for an offence under section 20 could not be taken against him and was illegal, cannot be accepted. 8. Lastly, I would like to consider the argument of Mr. Misra that the written petition filed by the opposite party before the Magistrate or his oral statement before him is not complaint and no cognizance can be taken against him on their basis. Complaint has been defined in section 4 (h) of the Code. According to the definition, it means the allegation made orally or in writing (except a report by a Police Officer) to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action under this Code that some person known or unknown has committed an offence. As stated earlier, the written petition of the opposite party was not addressed to any Magistrate it was addressed to the Controller. As stated earlier, the written petition of the opposite party was not addressed to any Magistrate it was addressed to the Controller. There is nothing therein on the basis of which it can be said that the opposite party wanted that action be taken against the petitioner under the Code. Whatever claims were made by the opposite party in the petition, they were for taking action under the Act. Some of the claims are such that the Magistrate if he is not the Controller (Shri Shambhu Sharan Sinha is not a Controller) can not do anything in respect thereof. Though sections 10 and 20 were added to the petition by hand after it was typed and were thus referred to in it, the whole petition as amended shows that the opposite party wanted that action be taken against the petitioner under the Act. Therefore, the written petition cannot be treated as a complaint. 9. There is also nothing in the oral statement of the opposite party on the basis of which it may be said that he wanted that action be taken against the petitioner under the Code. In his oral statement the opposite party has said that in his written petition he has claimed for fixation of fair rent. This also shows that the opposite party wanted action against the petitioner under the Act and not under the Code. In the oral statement it has also been stated that the house is in the name of the wife of the petitioner, but it was the petitioner who gave it on rent to the opposite party. It is not clear from the statement that the petitioner himself receives the rent from the opposite party or is entitled to receive rent from him. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be the landlord as defined in section 2 (d) of the Act of the house belonging to his wife. Only the landlord can be held guilty for contravening the provisions of section 10 (1). Hence no cognizance can be taken for an offence under section 20 (1) of the Act on the basis of the allegations made in the oral statement of the opposite party. The law is settled that if a person cannot be said to have committed any offence on the basis of allegations made against him, criminal proceeding against him should be quashed. 10. The law is settled that if a person cannot be said to have committed any offence on the basis of allegations made against him, criminal proceeding against him should be quashed. 10. Though out of the four arguments advanced by Mr. Misra, three are without substance, but on the basis of one argument which is of substance, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate against the petitioner is illegal and fit to be quashed. Hence this revision petition is allowed and the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance is quashed. Application allowed.