Usha Maha ( 1 ) BY this common order both applications one by petitioner and other by L. R. s of respondent No. 2 are disposed of. ( 2 ) THE legal heirs of deceased respondent 2 in their application No. 418/90 have sought restraint order against the petitioner and his sons respondents 3 and 4 from surrendering tenancy premises bearing No. 18/1, Mehrauli, New Delhi. In the cross application being C A. No. 587/92, the petitioner has sought a similar direction against the legal heirs of respondent No. 2, wherein he has prayed that the two sons of late respondent No 2, Mr Ram Kumar Sharma have been misusing the company premises by running tea stall and that the landlord Shri Ram Dayal had been complaining about the same. That in collusion with Mr. J. N. Bakshi and Mr. Ram Dayal, co-owners of the property, the respondent 2 and now his legal representatives are going to surrender the possession of the premises. Respondent 2 was going to concede the eviction petition filed by the landlord u/s. 14 (l) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act. That eviction petition must be stayed otherwise once the respondent 2 parted possession, the Company will lose that asset and suffer irreparable loss. ( 3 ) FACTS: Petition is holder of 240 shares. Supported by the shares of respondents 3 and 4, he is in majority. He alongwith respondents 3 and 4 together hold 58% voting rights Initially in 1966, the Company had your directors. Out of them Sh. Madho Prasad, Sh. Sagar Dutt and Sh. Krishan Sarup, were removed from the directorship of the Company. Respondent 2 was then made Managing Director, and the petitioner was also inducted in the manage- ment of the Company. Thereafter, there had been round of litigations before the Company Law Tribunal as well as before the Company Judge, between the present petitioner and respondent 2. The petitioner had been demanding the meeting of the Directors and General Body Meeting He had also been asking for accounts for the various financial years. On his request, respondent 2 prepared the accounts upto 31. 3. 74. The said accounts have not till date been filed with the Registrar of Companies. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 have been kept at bay in the running of the affairs of the company. On his request, respondent 2 prepared the accounts upto 31. 3. 74. The said accounts have not till date been filed with the Registrar of Companies. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 have been kept at bay in the running of the affairs of the company. Respondent 2 had virtually converted the company into a one man show. He has not rendered the accounts since 1. 4. 74 He became de-facto proprietor of the company. The tenancy right of the premises No. 18/4, Mehrauli which vested with the company had been converted in the personal name of respondent 2 without any authorisation of the Board of Directors. The entire assets of the company have been converted as a proprietory business of respondent 2. Hence the petition. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the petition respondent 2 died. His legal heirs were brought on record. Respondent 3 being the son of the petitioner supported the version of the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioner and respondent 3 that the electricity and water Bills are still raised in the name of the Company. Premises consists of one hall, three rooms, one verandah and porch. There is no partition wall dividing the premises belonging to the company, it cannot be alleged to be in the exclusive use and tenancy of respondent 2 or of his legal heirs. The tenancy rights of this premises belong to the company, therefore, it should be handed over to the Company. On the other hand, counsel for Mr. Bakshi, landlord, contended that in reply to the eviction petition, Mr. R. K. . Sharma, respondent 2 had admitted that he was tenant in his personal right. In view of the admission by the M. D. it does not lie with the petitioner to contend that the portion which was purchased by Mr. J. N. Bakshi, fell into the tenancy of the company. Counsel further contended that if the premises were let out to the Company, then the company in its return filed with the Income Tax Deptt. must have mentioned this fact as to how much rent was being paid and to whom. But no such record has been produced. J. N. Bakshi, fell into the tenancy of the company. Counsel further contended that if the premises were let out to the Company, then the company in its return filed with the Income Tax Deptt. must have mentioned this fact as to how much rent was being paid and to whom. But no such record has been produced. In the absence of any proof that the tenancy vest with the Company coupled with the admission made by the then M. D. that the premises was in his personal tenancy, the application of the petitioner deserves dismissal. In fact his version that half of the premises was given for the personal residence of respondent 2 should be believed. Late R. K. Sharma and after him his legal heirs are contesting eviction petition, the company has no locus standi. Counsel for the landlord further urged that company has committed forgery of rent receipts. According to him rent receipts were issued on plain paper and not on printed forms He did not keep any counter foil for the same Rebutting these arguments of the landlord, counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent 2 had colluded with the landlord against the interest of the company. However, the record which has been produced in Court clearly show that the rent receipts were issued on the printed form therefore, it is apparent that the landlord has not spoken the complete truth and should be prosecuted for perjury. ( 6 ) WITHOUT going into the controversy on merits regarding who was the tenant i. e. company or the respondent 2 because that is the relief sought in the main petition, suffice it to say that till the disposal of main petition parties must maintain status quo regarding possession of the premises in question. Since respondent 2 had made a statement in Court that he was residing in part of the premises in question, his L. R. s cannot use it for commercial porpose. They can only reside in that portion till the disposal of the main petition. Nor can they concede eviction petition filed by the land lord. Similarly, the petitioner cannot handover the premises nor part with possession of the premises in any manner. By these applications, the main relief cannot be disposed because any observation made herein will prejudice the parties in the main petition. Nor can they concede eviction petition filed by the land lord. Similarly, the petitioner cannot handover the premises nor part with possession of the premises in any manner. By these applications, the main relief cannot be disposed because any observation made herein will prejudice the parties in the main petition. Therefore, keeping these factors into consideration I order that the parties should maintain status quo and that the legal heirs of respondent 2 shall not create any third party interest, nor will handover the possession of the premises in question to anyone. Similarly, the petitioner will also not part with the possession of the premises in question. petitioner himself. Even. otherwise as held in Madan Lal vs. Hazara Singh. 1977 (2) RLR 641 and Rampiari vs. M/s Delhi Fruit Co. , 1980 (1) RCJ 662 that the owner. of the property would be a landlord since he is entitled to receive rent. A landlord who is holding the property for himself, and for his own-benefit, is certainly the owner/londlord. When a landlord is also owner of the property and there is no other person Claiming ownership of the property against the tenant, it is such a landlord who will be entitled to claim eviction and would be the landlord. In this case Trehan has not claimed ownership of the properly rather he clarified that he was acting for the owner. Respondent and his co-heirs are in fact entitled to receive the rent and being co-heir respondent I is the landlord qua the petitioner/tenant even though he received the rent through his agent Mr. Trehan. The complexion of the case would have been different, if Mr. Trehan had at any stage staked the claim to be the owner/landlord of the property. He has not staked any such claim. on the contrary vide his affidavit he has denied being the "landlord". He being agent of the principal i. e. the landlord, his affidavit has been rightly looked into by the Controller in order to infer the animus Even otherwise the animus is clear from the reading of the rent receipts. The factum of Mr. Trehan acting for the landlord was clearly understood by the present petitioner. Therefore, at this stage it does not lie in his mouth to say that Trehan is the landlord and not respondent No. 1. The factum of Mr. Trehan acting for the landlord was clearly understood by the present petitioner. Therefore, at this stage it does not lie in his mouth to say that Trehan is the landlord and not respondent No. 1. ( 7 ) MERE alleging that there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant is not a sufficient nor can be treated ex-facia a triable issue. Affidavit of the tenant must disclose such facts which would disentitle the landlord from obtaining the order for eviction. In this case the tenant has not raised any plea which can constitute a triable issue. Moreover, S. 48 (3) of the Act, which has now been brought on the statute book by the Amendment Act, 1988, provides that if any landlord relets or transfers whole or any part of any premises in contravention of S. 19 (1) or (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both. Not only S. I 9 creates a bar of three years for reletting the premises but further provides that the said premises be occupied within two months after obtaining such possession and, if he fails to do. so, he would he liable to be punished. u/s. 48 (3. ). In view of these stringent provisions, it cannot be presumed that respondent 1 is asking for the eviction for fun sake. ( 8 ) IT would not be out of place to mention that the tenant s right to contest the application u/s. 14-B- is narrowed down and is restricted to the para meters of the Section. He cannot be allowed to widen the scope of his defence as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh Kalra (Supra ). ( 9 ) THE contention of Mr. Singla that respondent 1 is now residing at Chandigarh is also without force. Admittedly, respondent I has no accommodation available at Delhi. Merely because he is residing at Chandigarh does not mean that his need is not bonafide. Moreover, this plea was not taken before the Trial Court and in revision it cannot be allowed. The argument advanced at the bar that respondent 1 has shifted to Chandigarh is irrelevant. Allegations are vague. It is nobody s case that respondent 1 does not need this house for his residence. Moreover, this plea was not taken before the Trial Court and in revision it cannot be allowed. The argument advanced at the bar that respondent 1 has shifted to Chandigarh is irrelevant. Allegations are vague. It is nobody s case that respondent 1 does not need this house for his residence. Respondent Is stand through out has been consistent that after retirement from the armed forces he needs this premises for his residence and that he had no other accommodation available at Delhi. Hence his need is bonafide. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I find no merits in this petition nor any infirmity in the impugned order.