This writ petition has arisen out of an ejectment order passed against the petitioner, Muhammad Khalid. His ejectment was sought by respondentNo. 1, Muhammad Munir, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, inter alia, on the ground of default. The plea raised by the petitioner was that when he was occupying the disputed premises as a tenant under the respondent, the respondent executed an agreement to sell those premises to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on the coming into existence of the said agreement the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had seized to exist and, therefore, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to hear the ejectment application filed by the respondent. After recording the parties' evidence on issue relating to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it was found by the learned Rent Controller, who bad made the order of eviction that the petitioner had failed to perform his part of the agreement and, therefore, the agreement was of no avail to him. It was held by him that the said relationship, was very much there between the parties and since the petitioner had not alleged payment or tender of rent in respect of which default has been alleged, he was liable to be evicted.
The order of the learned Rent Controller was challenged by the petitioner by taking an appeal to an Additional District Judge but in vain. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition.
2. It was conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had inducted the petitioner into the premises in question as a tenant. It was, however, urged by him that the relationship of landlord and tenant between them had disappeared in consequence of the agreement of sale entered into by the respondent and, therefore, the learned Rent. Controller had no jurisdiction to make the order of ejectment. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the two tribunals below had erred in holding that the petitioner had not performed his part of the agreement. He cited Manzoor Hussain v. Nawazish Nazir Hussain and another P L. D 1976 Lah, 637, to support his submission.
3. The agreement in question is embodied in a document of which Annexure `D. 4' is a copy. It was produced before the learned Rent Controller as Exh. R.
1. According to the terms of the agreement the sale price was fixed at Rs. 7,550, out of which Rs. 1,000 were paid as earnest money. The balance was to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent till the 10th December, 1977, whereafter the respondent was to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It was stipulated in the agreement that if the petitioner failed to pay the balance of the sale price by the aforesaid date, the agreement would be deemed to have been cancelled and the earnest money would stand forfeited in favour of the respondent. Admittedly, it was after the above date that the respondent had filed ejectment application against the petitioner. The respondent produced evidence showing that the petitioner did not pay or offer to pay the balance of the sale price before the stipulated date and, therefore, the agreement to sell had come to an end. The petitioner had led evidence to the contrary. The concurrent finding recorded by the two tribunals below, however, is to the effect that the petitioner had not performed . His part of the agreement and, therefore, the agreement was no longer holding the field. Their finding in the matter is on a question of fact and cannot be A interfered with by this Court even if it happens to be erroneous. I will therefore, proceed on the assumption that the petitioner had failed to pay the balance of the sale price by the stipulated date.
4. As for the case of Manzoor Hussain, relied .Upon by the learned counsel, it is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as it was not pleaded in the cited' case that the prospective vendee had failed to perform his part of the agreement. On the other hand, it has been found in the instant case that t petitioner had not paid balance of the sale price within the agreed period and, therefore, on the expiry of that period, the agreement of sale automati--cally ceased to be of any legal effect. The respondent had taken out ejectment proceedings after the running out of the said period. It would, therefore, follow that on the date when the respondent had sought eviction of t petitioner the protection of the agreement of sale or that of the provision of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, were not available to the petitioner. With the disappearance of the agreement from the scene, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had been revived and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the ejectment matter.
5. In this view of the matter, no legitimate exception can be taken to the orders of the two tribunals below. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.