Judgment : This Rule arises on an application under Ss. 401/482 of the Code and is directed against the order passed by the 1earned 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, dated 27th August, 1979, rejecting the application under S. 205 of the Code and also for quashing the proceeding. 2. On 17.3.79 the opposite party filed a complaint under S. 200 of the Code in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioner and another for issuing process alleging that they had committed offences punishable under Ss. 191,192, 193 read with S. 109/120 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and issued process under S. 193 I.P.C. against the petitioner only. The allegations in the petition of complaint are that the petitioner is not a tenant in respect of the disputed premises and the petitioner is a mere licensee. It has been alleged that before the Rent Controller the petitioner and another person dishonestly made false statements that the petitioner was one of the Directors of the tenant company and that the applicant-company is a tenant under the opposite party in respect of the ground floor of the main building at premises No. 26, Ashutosh Chowhury Avenue and that the applicant tendered a sum of Rs. 1600/- for rent and service purpose for the month of November, 1978 It is the case of the complaint that the petitioner was never a tenant and made deliberately false statement and as such the petitioner has committed an offence under S. 193 of the Code. Mr. D. P. Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raises two points. In the first place, it is submitted that according to the provisions of S. 195 of the Code as the statements are alleged to have been falsely made before the Rent Controller the Rent Controller ought to have filed the complaint. In such a case a complaint by a private person is not maintainable. Section 195 lays down that 'no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Ss. 193 to 196.................. when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any court ...........................except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate." Mr. Section 195 lays down that 'no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Ss. 193 to 196.................. when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any court ...........................except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate." Mr. Chowdhury contends that when application has been made before a Rent Controller supported by an affidavit and some statements have been made before the Rent Controller which the complainant alleged false statements the Controller In such a case will be deemed as a court within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Insupport of his contention Mr. Chowdhury refers to a decision, reported in AIR 1955 Calcutta (NUC) 830(?). In that case, a proceeding was pending before the learned Rent Controller' for standardisation of rent, Evidence was taken for the said purpose and it was held that the Rent Controller, in such a case is a court within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying on this decision, Mr. Chowdhury submits that in this case also, the Rent Controller should be deemed as a court within the meaning of the Code. Mr. Sankardas Banerji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, refers to a Bench decision of this Court, reported in 57 CWN 540 (Rai Bahadur Ramprosad Rajgharia v. British Insulated Callender's Cables Ltd.) which held that a Rent Controller is not a court within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure Mr. Chowdhury dist nguishes the Bench Decision by saying that Rent Controller is not a court within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code. But it is a court within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The principle laid down in the case, relied on by Mr. Chowdhury is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case it cannot be said that there was any Judicial proceeding. No evidence was required to be taken. The Rent Controller was also not required to decide anything, Only an application supported by an affidavit was filed at the time of deposit of rent. Chowdhury is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case it cannot be said that there was any Judicial proceeding. No evidence was required to be taken. The Rent Controller was also not required to decide anything, Only an application supported by an affidavit was filed at the time of deposit of rent. This being the position, I am of opinion that in such circumstances, the Rent Controller cannot be considerer as a court under the Code of Criminal Procedure and that being so, S. 951 of the Code has no application. 3. Mr. Chowdhury, in the next place, submits that if false statements are made in an application at the time of deposit of rent, then the landlord can very well take action under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Section 21(8) lays down that "if at the time of filing the petition mentioned in sub-s. (5) but not after the expiry of 30 days from receiving the notice of deposit the landlord, or the person, or persons mentioned in sub-s. (3) complain to the Rent Controller, that the statements in tenant's application, of the reasons and circumstances which led him to deposit the rent, are untrue, the Controller, after giving the tenant an opportunity of being heard, may levy on the tenant a fine .......... This being a special offence under the statute Mr. Chowdhury submits that if the complainant was really aggrieved, the complainant could have filed an application before the learned Rent Controller under S. 21(8) of the Code. Mr. Chowdhury in this connection submits with much emphasis that making false statements in an application before the Rent Controller no doubt amounts to an offence, but it is a statutory offence and not an offence under the Code. In support of his contention, Mr. Chowdhury relies on a decision reported in AIR 1967 Calcutta 145 Triloknath lall & anr v. Malati Bibi Khetry & ors.) It has been held in this case the offence under S. 21(8) read with S. 21 (2)(d) is a statutory offence, all the indicia of an offence being present. It is not a criminal offence within the meaning of S. 4(0) of the Criminal Procedure Code Even though the section appears in Chapter 4 captioned 'Deposit of rent' and not in Ch. 7 captioned 'Penalties; and Miscellaneous'. It is not a criminal offence within the meaning of S. 4(0) of the Criminal Procedure Code Even though the section appears in Chapter 4 captioned 'Deposit of rent' and not in Ch. 7 captioned 'Penalties; and Miscellaneous'. It does not make any difference, the test being the contents and not its location. The intention of the legislature also makes it a statutory offence." It has been further held in this case "when, however, a statute other than the Penal Code create, an offence and specifies a person who is not a Criminal Court and who is not a Magistrate, such as Controller under the Rent Control Acts, the officer of the customs under the Sea Customs Act etc., to try such offence or to inquire into it S. 5, sub-s. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is attracted too, but only to keep away the Code's provisions to the contrary, because of the exception in the second part of S. 5. S. (2)" Mr. Banerji contends that the provisions of the West Bengal Premise" Tenancy Act are not applicable to tile facts of the present case as according to the complainant, the petitioner is not a tenant. The provisions of S. 21 apply only in a case when admittedly, the persons are tenant and landlord. I cannot accept the submission of Mr. Banerji. It may be that it is the contention of the complainant that the petitioner is not a tenant and that is why the complainant has filed the complaint on the allegation that the petitioner, though not a tenant, described himself falsely' as a tenant in the application before the Rent Controller. I am, therefore, of opinion that the provisions of S. 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act are applicable ill the present case. Relying on the decision, referred to by Mr. Chowdhury, I find that the allegations of the complaint, if proved, would amount to a statutory offence which, under the Statute, the Rent Controller is empowered deal with. In such circumstances a complaint by the complainant in the Criminal Court is not maintainable. I am therefore, of opinion that the proceeding pending before the learned Magistrate should be quashed. Chowdhury, I find that the allegations of the complaint, if proved, would amount to a statutory offence which, under the Statute, the Rent Controller is empowered deal with. In such circumstances a complaint by the complainant in the Criminal Court is not maintainable. I am therefore, of opinion that the proceeding pending before the learned Magistrate should be quashed. In view of this finding, there is no necessity in going to the question whether the application filed by the petitioner under S. 205 of the Code was rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate. In the result, the application succeeds and the Rule is made absolute. The proceeding pending before the learned Magistrate is quashed. Rule made absolute; Proceeding quashed.