( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant and has Filed this FAO against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1. 10. 1996. This order was passed in a group of I. As. and in Suit No. 264/94 which was initially Filed by the appellant in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Delhi for permanent injunction and was later transferred to the High Court and registered as Suit No. 997 of 1996. It was so transferred with a view to be tried along with Suit No. 885 of 1994 Filed by the same appellant in the High Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.

( 2 ) BEFORE the transfer the plaintiff-appellant obtained an ex parte injunction order on 2. 4. 94 from the Sub-Judge which was vacated on 15. 4. 94 by the Sub-Judge. Then plaintiff Filed Suit No. 885/94 under Section 20 of the. Arbitration Act in High Court and again got an interim order 23. 5. 94 which was made absolute on 1. 3. 95. Under the impugned-order dated 1. 10. 96, the learned Single Judge held that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was not that of sub-tenant and tenant respectively but was that of Agent and Principal. The transferred Suit No. 997 of 1996 Filed by the appellant for permanent injunction was dismissed. But I. A. 4480/96 Filed in that suit by the defendant-respondent against the appellant after transfer of the suit to the High Court for removal of the appellant s furniture and unsold stock and decorative material from the shop was allowed. Similar application, namely, IA 2417/96 Filed on 11. 3. 96 by defendant against appellant in Suit No. 264/94 before the transfer of the suit to the High Court was also allowed. I. A. 4442/996 Filed by the owners (i. e. landlords of the defendant-respondent) for impleadment was also dismissed. FAO 231/96 (being M. C. A. 1129/94 on transfer) Filed by the plaintiff-appellant was also dismissed. Against the common order dated 1. 10. 1996, of the learned Single Judge, this single appeal has been Filed by the plaintiff. There was some dispute as to how there could be a single appeal or at any rate against FAO 231/96 but without going into the respondent s contention as to maintainability of a single appeal, we are going into the merits inasmuch as against the order in IA 4480/96 and against Final order in IA 2417/96 in Suit No. 997/96, this appeal is anyway maintainable. The brief case of the appellant in the plaint in Suit No. 264/94 for permanent injunction (transfer Suit No. 997/96) is that the respondent (who in turn is a tenant from the owners of the shop) had leased the shop to the appellant Firm as per the written agreement dated 5. 1. 1992 for the period 21. 2. 1991 to 31. 3. 1994. Appellant says that even though the agreement is described as one of "agency" in which the appellantplaintiff is described as "principal" and the respondent-defendant is described as the "agent", still the agreement is one of tenancy in favour of the appellant by the respondent and that it was deliberately camouflaged as an "agency" agreement. Appellant also contends that the appellant was in exclusive possession as a tenant of the respondent paying a minimum rent of Rs. 30. 000 during 1991-94, that at the expiry of the period, respondent demanded Rs. 60,000 p. m. and as the appellant did not agree, respondent threatened on 31. 3. 1994 and 1. 4. 1994 to dispossess the appellant forcibly. Hence, the suit was filed for permanent injunction. The case of the defendant-respondent was that the agreement dated 5. 1. 1992 was an agreement of Agency, the appellant (the owner of the goods in the shop) being the principal and the respondent (the tenant from the owners) being-the Agent. The agreement was not one of lease in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Appellant is estopped from contending that it is a lease. The respondent s further case is that the appellant was supplying goods to the respondent on consignment basis and respondent, as agent, was selling them on commission. The salesmen and staff are the empl