( 1 ) COURTS must take note of what is happening today. Parties take forcible possession. They then seek an ex-parte injunction restraining the other side i. e the party from whom forcible possession has been taken, from dispossessing them. Having taken possession very often they also ask the Court to appoint a Commissioner to ascertain who is in possession. Thus process of law is misused. In this Appeal Court is considering Orders passed at an interim stage. Thus all observations of this Court would be prima-facie. However facts set out hereafter disclose, even at this prima-facie stage, that the Respondent have taken forcible possession and then come to Court. Unfortunately, the Respondents have succeeded in obtaining an Order dated 24th August 1995 in its favour. They have thus managed to enjoy, for the last four years, the fruits of their illegal act. The Appeal is against the Order dated 24th August, 1995.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are as follows:

( 3 ) THE Appellants and Respondent entered into an Agreement dated 15th September 1980. According to the Appellants a Franchise was being granted to them. According to the Appellants a Franchise being unknown to India the Agreement was in the nature of an Agency Agreement. The Agreement was renewed on 16th September 1983, 16th September 1986, 16th September 1989 and 19th September, 1991.

( 4 ) THE Respondents filed the Suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Appellants from interfering with their possession of Shop bearing No. B-24 Connaught Place, New Delhi and to restrain the Appellants from carrying on business in the said shop. The Respondents also sought a declaration that they were lawful tenant of the Appellants. The Respondents claimed that they are functioning under the name and style of INTERSHOPPE. They claimed that they are exporters of garments and also manufacturers and retailers of garments in India. The Respondents claimed that they dealt in retail outlet not only in India but throughout the world. They claimed that they were interested in opening a retail outlet in Connaught Place in the year 1980 and that the Appellants were also interested in giving this above mentioned shop on rent. The Respondents claimed that the Appellants were in possession of this shop as a tenant. They claimed that in view of the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, it was not possible to enter into a contract of sub-lease. The Respondents claimed that in order to avoid the clutches of the Delhi Rent Control Act a document showing the transaction between the parties to be that of a Principal and Agent was prepared. They claimed that all records and documents were maintained as if the transaction was in the nature of an Agency. They claimed that they were put in possession of the shop. The Respondents claimed that the Agreements were, therefore, sham and bogus. The Respondents claimed that the real agreement between the parties was that a tenancy had been created. The Respondents claimed that as the period under the last Agreement had got over negotiations had taken place between the parties for executing a fresh document. The Respondents claimed that those negotiations failed. They claimed that on 27th September 1994 one of the partners of the Appellants , one Sukhinder Pal Singh, visited the shop and created a scene by using unparliamentary language to the staff and that he also threatened to put his lock on the premises and not to allow the Respondent to make use of the premises. The Respondent claimed that it is under these circumstances that they had filed this Suit. Along with the Suit the Respondents took out IA No. 8829/94 seeking an interim injunction. On 3rd October 1994 status quo was directed to be maintained. On the Application of the Respondents a Local Commissioner was also appointed to visit the suit premises and to submit his Report. On 7th October 1994 Respondents moved another Application being IA No. 8976/94 alleging that the Appe