1. This revision application is directed against the judgment of the Small Causes Court, Karachi.
2. Briefly the facts are that under an agreement dated 4-10-1968, the applicant let out her bungalow to respondent No. 1 for the residence of its employee on a monthly rent of Rs.500. The agreement inter alia stipulated that the premises was leased out for a period of one year commencing from the date of taking possession of the said premises with the option of the respondent No. 1 to renew the lease by giving one month's written notice to the applicant before the expiry of the lease, with further option to both the parties to terminate this agreement at any time without giving any reason whatsoever by serving three months' notice in writing to the other party. The premises was occupied by respondent No. 2, an employee of the respondent No. 1 who agreed to pay an additional amount of Rs.25 p. m. To the applicant for the additional benefits provided to him. The respon--dent No. 2 occupied the premises on 5-10-1968 and vacated it on 15-7-1971. However, no notice for renewal of the agreement was served by respondent No. I and respondent No. 2 continued to reside there till the premises was vacated. The rent was paid regularly. By notice dated 20th June, 1971 the respondent No. 1 informed the applicant that the premises will be vacated on 15th July, 1971 and the applicant was called upon to take vacant possession at 11 a.m. On that date. On 15-7-1971 the premises was vacated and an inventory was jointly prepared by the applicant and respondent No. 1 whereby the breakage, loss and damage to the premises was noted down. Thereafter by a notice dated 25th August, 1977, the applicant made the following claims :--
(1) Claim for the remaining notice periodRs.1,083.00
(2) Estimated cost for repairsRs.1,050.00
(3) Cost of two electric shadesRs.150.00
(4) Electric and Sui Gas chargesRs.1,097.22 Total Rs.3,380.22 Alongwith the notice, the applicant also sent copy of 2 estimates submitted by two contractors in which one was for Rs.1,160 and the other was for Rs.1,050. The photo copies of the electric bill and gas bill were also forwarded to the respondent No. 1. By another notice of the same date issued to respondent No. 2, the applicant demanded Rs.533 being the amount which the respondent No. 2 had agreed to pay at Rs.25 p, m. This amount was for the period from 5-10-1968 to 15-7-1971. No reply to these notices seems to have been brought on record. As the respondents did not appear, the suit was tried ex parte and the applicant filed affidavit of ex parte proof alongwith the documents. The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit against respondent No. 2 for Rs.591.44.
3. The suit against the respondent No. 1 was dismissed. This revision has been directed against the dismissal of suit against the respondent No. 1. 1 have heard Mr. Badrudduja, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Kamal Azfar, Advocate for respondent No. 1. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that after expiry of agreement on 5-10-1969 the respondents continued to be in possession of the said property and, therefore, all the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement continued to be in force. On this he has argued that the respon--dent No. 1 was bound to give three months' notice before vacating the premises and as the notice served only 25 days before vacating the premises, the applicant is entitled to recover rent for two months five days. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 1980 SCMR 184. This case is, however, distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Mr, Kamal Azfar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has invited my attention to the case of Muhammad Yousuf v.
4. Abdullah (PLD1980SC298) where the following observation was made :- "Therefore, we would observe that an agreement can only be made by the consent of parties, and if an agreement is for a fixed period it comes to an end on the expiry of the agreed period, unless it is renewed by both the parties. Now, in the instant case, on the plain language of clause I (d) of the lease agreement, the lease came to an end on 10-1-1965, therefore it could have remained in force only if the appellant and the respondent had entered into a fresh agreement to keep the lease in force. There is, however, absolutely no evidence of such agreement nor has the plea been taken by the respondent in his eviction application that the lease agreement has been extended by mutual consent."
5. Admittedly no such option was exercised by the respondent No. 1 no it was extended by mutual consent. Therefore, it cannot be contended by the applicant that the terms and conditions of the agreement for serving three months' notice shall apply to the respondent No. _ I even after the expiry of the agreement. The applicant's claim for Rs.1,083 was, therefore, rightly rejected by the learned lower Court.
6. The next claim of Rs.1,050 has been rejected on the ground that in the absence of a final receipt of payment merely on the basis of the estimate of the contractor for repairs, the claim was not proved. The learned lower Court further observed that it is not known whether the damage was caused during the first year or afterwards. On the basis of the' joint inventory and the fact that the respondent remained in occupation till it was vacated, it can safely be presumed that the loss was caused during the continuance of their occupation. The applicant had served a notice claiming damage on the basis of the joint inventory but it was not denied by the respondents. The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that in that notice dated 25th August, 1971, the applicant had sent copies of two estimates obtained from two different contractors and for purposes of the suit he had relied only on the lower estimate. The respondents do not seen to have replied to it. The respondent No. 1 had prepared the inventory jointly and the repairs required for the breakage and damages were known to them. If they did not choose to dispute the estimates which were forwarded .To them, the applicant could have ordered for the repairs on the basis. Of the estimate.
7. At the time of filing the affidavit of proof the applicant had not carried out the repairs and, therefore, there could be no better evidence than the estimates which had beet notified to the respondent No. 1 who had 'not objected to it. In the circum--stances, the claim for Rs.1,050 should be decreed against the respondent No. 1. The applicant has claimed Rs.150 towards the cost of replacement of two electric light shades but neither any receipt has been produced, nor any document has been filed in support of this claim and, therefore this claim was rightly rejected.
8. The next claim of the applicant relates to electric and gas bills. The applicant had produced a receipt from the Karachi Gas .Co. Ltd. Dated 12th August, 1971 for Rs.58.44. This claim has been allowed by the learned lower court.
9. There remains the last claim for Rs.1,038.78 being the electric charges. In support of this claim the applicant hid produced an electric bill. A photo copy of this bill was sent to the respondent ,No. 1 "but it did not reply. The learned lower Court, however, rejected it on the ground that it was merely bill and no receipt has been produced for payment of the amount. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the fact that a bill has been issued in respect of a certain period, would lead to the inference that these charges accrued during that period. A close scrutiny of the bill reveals that Rs.1,038.78 were due on the basis of the reading made on 17th August, 1971, whereas the premises was vacated on 15-7-1971. However, the arrear has been shown as Rs.863.54. In the absence of and" evidence or explanation that a sum of Rs.1,038.78 was due as on 15-7-1971. I would take only the arrears namely Rs.863.54 to be the amount which was due and payable. In the circumstances the applicant is entitled to a decree for the sum of Rs.863.54. I would, therefore, set aside the judgment -and decree passed in favour of respondent No. 1. The applicant's suit is decreed against respondent No:' 1 for a total sum of Rs.1,913.54. The Petitioner will.. Be entitled to the proportionate amount of Court fee. There will be no order as to further cost which should be borne by the parties themselves. , _