1. It is admitted position that the petitioner initially took the 'bungalow as a tenant of respondent No. 2, but it is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the agreement respondent No. 2 approached him for sale of the bungalow and on 25-7-1977 Rs. 10,000 was paid in cash as earnest money or part payment to respondent No. 2 who executed a receipt in respect thereof; and it was further agreed that a sum of Rs. 22,500 being the balance of advance rent paid to respondent No. 2 at the time of the lease ,q was to be adjusted as further payment towards the balance of the purchase price of the bungalow. It is further the 'case of the petitioner that Rs. 25,000 was to be paid on receipt of photostat copies of 99 years' lease which was demanded from the respondent, and the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 4, 50,000. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned appellate order of the learned District Judge, Karachi is illegal and void as in the same finding of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been given, and further as although there is a suit pending before the High Court in respect of the agreement for sale the learned District Judge had decided in the impugned judgment that respondent No. 1 had cancelled the agreement. It is argued by Mr. S. Hyder Pirzada, the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the finding of relationship of landlord and tenant goes to the very root of the matter and is based on misreading of evidence and the law, this Court has jurisdiction to set the matter right by striking down the impugned order.
2. On the other hand, Mr. Anver Shere, the learned Advocate for respondent No. 1, has pointed out that when there is jurisdiction to decide the matter, it could be decided rightly or wrongly and the writ jurisdiction of this Court is not attracted even if the decision is considered improper or wrong. He has relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Muhammad Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139) wherein it was inter alia observed that, it is well settled that where a Court or a tribunal has jurisdiction and it determines that question, it cannot be said that it acted illegally or with material irregularity merely because it came to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law.
3. It is apparent that it is the case of the petitioner that section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is a bar to eject a tenant inasmuch as there was an agreement to sell the property in favour of the tenant. He has relied upon the decision in Moosa Hassan Amlani v. The Government of Pakistan and 4 others (PLD 1978 Kar. 883) and the Supreme Court decision in Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. v.
4. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD1973SC236). On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No. 1 reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court decision in Haji Jan Mohomed. v.
5. 'Ghulam Ghous and 2 others (1976SCMR141) in which it was inter alia observed as under: "As observed earlier, agreement of sale Exh. R/I which formed the sheet anchor of the petitioner's case did not exempt from payment of rent and, therefore, his continued occupation of the premises in violation of the law could hardly be put forth as a defence as a step towards part performance when admittedly the petitioner had never passed consideration for sale.
6. Reliance has also beep placed on Khusro Alam Hyderi v. Mst Iqbal Begum (1981 CLC 347) in which its was held that that since no stipulation had been made about continuation or cessation of tenancy prior to execution of contract for sale of property tenant was deemed to be a tenant holding --over and relationship of tenant and landlord continued with the liability of the tenant to pay rent to the landlord who on failure to pay rent was liable to ejectment. The learned District Judge in the impugned judgment has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1976 SCMR 141 in which it was held that unless there is a stipulation in the sale agreement exempting the tenant from payment of rent he continues to remain as tenant and agreement to sell would not be a good defence.
7. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned judg--ment is without jurisdiction or that it is a legally wrong decision on the point which goes to the root of the matter. The petition would therefore appear to have been misconceived and is dismissed in limine.