PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. HUKAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one appears for the plaintiff in spite of the matter having been called out for the second time. It is 12.30 P.M. I have gone through the record and, therefore, am proceeding to dispose of the matter.

(2.) THIS regular second appeal is filed impugning the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 9.9.2013. The Appellate Court by the judgment dated 9.9.2013 dismissed the appeal of the appellant therein and who is also the appellant before this Court and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 7.7.2010 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits etc. Disputes in the present case are disputes between the appellant -tenant and the respondent - landlord.

(3.) THE judgment of the Appellate Court shows that though the appellant/defendant disputed the factum of tenancy in his name and claimed that the tenancy was in the name of his firm, the Appellate Court has rightly disbelieved the stand of the appellant because the respondent -plaintiff proved as exhibited document Ex.PW1/2 to show that the rate of rent is Rs. 3750/ - per month. Also, the Appellate Court has rightly relied upon the fact that the appellant -defendant had earlier filed a suit in the civil court for permanent injunction wherein no case was laid out by the present appellant that he was not a tenant but the tenant was his firm. To the aforesaid findings of the Courts below I must add that even if the firm of the appellant is the tenant I do not find any pleading of the appellant stating that his firm is partnership firm with specified other persons, and therefore, the firm which the appellant talks of would only be a sole proprietorship concern and consequently suit was very much maintainable against the appellant - defendant because there is no difference in the entity or identity between a sole proprietor and the firm of the sole proprietor.