JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in C.S. No. 22-B/91, decided on 29.11.94, by the First Additional Distt. .Judge Bhopal, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,10,710.00 with interest at 6% per annum. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff is a partnership firm and the appellants-defendants took on rent from the plaintiff respondent 18 plinths along with other facilities for storage of food-grains, sugar, fertilizers and other materials and ancillary works, i.e. inner and approach roads, fencing at the site boundary walls, six single storeyed quarters, electric fittings, watchman and office building and 3 W.C. Blocks with fittings at the rent of Rs. 99,540.00 per month. This was leased out to the defendant-appellants for a period of three years with an option to the defendants-appellants to retain the accommodation for one year more on the same terms and conditions, but the defendants vacated the premises on 10.10.88. Thereby putting the plaintiff to financial loss and as such, he filed separate civil suit against the defendants for recovery of damages. The suit for damages was decreed and an amount of Rs. 1,10,710.00 was deducted against the claim of M/s. Nav Nirman Private Ltd. pertaining to cement concrete blocks, etc. Therefore, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the aforesaid sum against the appellants-defendants that they had no justification to deduct this amount from the arrears of rent. The suit was contested by the defendants. They took the plea that this firm and the film M/s. Nav Nirman Private Ltd. are the same and this money was due from the plaintiff to the defendants. Therefore, they have adjusted this sum against arrears of rent. The learned trial Court, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the defendants have failed to establish whether the plaintiff firm and the Nav Nirman Private Ltd. are the same. the trial Court has even recorded that no evidence whatsoever was led to show that this amount was at all due from the Nav Nirman Private Ltd; more so, it was also held by the learned trial Court that there is no evidence whatsoever that there was any agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants to recover any money due from Nav Nirman Private Ltd. against the rent. Therefore, in view of absence of any such agreement whatsoever, the trial court came to the conclusion that deduction of Rs. 1,10,710.00 by the defendants against arrears of rent from the plaintiff cannot be sustained and accordingly a decree has been passed by the trial Court. We have examined the matter and heard learned counsel for parties. We are of opinion that after going through the evidence, we do not see any reason to take a different view that the one taken by the trial Court. It was the duty of the defendants to justify that any agreement was entered into between the plaintiff firm that if any due of Nav Nirman Private Ltd. is there, then the amount can be adjusted against this firm. It may be that one of the partners in both the firms may be common, but both the firms are separately registered and have distinct identity. Therefore, dues of one partnership firm cannot be recovered from another firm unless there is a contract to this effect. In the present case, no such contract has been established by the defendants that there was any agreement from the present firm. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be well founded and there is no justification to interfere in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.