JUDGMENT - P.B. SAVANT, J.:---This Civil Revision Application arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Nanded, on 26th March, 1971, setting aside the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller on 5th January, 1970. 2. One Gulam Mohiuddin is the owner of an immovable property situate at Itwara, Nanded, shop Nos. 7-3-229 and 7-3-230 are in this property. These shops are referred to hereafter as “the premises.” On 27th March, 1963, Gulam Mohiuddin created a possessory mortgage of this property in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for a period of 5 years. Under the terms and conditions of this mortgage, the petitioner was entitled to receive the rents of the mortgaged property in lieu of interest. That mortgage has not been redeemed till today. Pursuant to the mortgage, the possession of the property was transferred to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the premises were let out by Gulam Mohiuddin to the respondents and that they are the tenants of Gulam Mohiuddin. It was the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents failed to pay any rent to the petitioner for 3 years, namely from 27th March, 1966 till 1st February, 1969. The petitioner thereupon terminated the tenancy of the respondents and filed and application against them in the Court of the Rent Controller, Nanded being Case No. 69-RCA-15/0/18, for eviction on the ground that they are wilful defaulters. On 5th January, 1970, the Rent Controller decreed the petitioners application and ordered the respondents to vacate the suit premises within 60 days. Against that respondents filed an appeal in the District Court at Nanded, being Rent Control Appeal No. 17 of 1970. By his Judgement and order dated 26th March, 1971, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and reversed the decree of the Rent Controller. Hence the present Civil Revision Application. The learned District Judge came to the finding that no intimation about the mortgage was given to the respondents and there does not appear to be any attornment of tenancy by the tenants of Gulam Mohiuddin to the mortgagee, namely the petitioner. He also came to the conclusion that even the tenancy of the respondents in favour of “the mortgagor, Gulam Mohiuddin, is also not established.” This has been repeated in the judgment at two different places. He also came to the conclusion that even the tenancy of the respondents in favour of “the mortgagor, Gulam Mohiuddin, is also not established.” This has been repeated in the judgment at two different places. On these two grounds, the learned District Judge came to the finding against the petitioner. 3. With respect to the learned District Judge he does not appear to be entirely correct when he holds that no intimation about the mortgage was given to the respondents. In 1966, the petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 195 of 1966 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, against Gulam Mohiuddin (who was the 1st defendant to that suit) one Basheer (who was defendant No. 2 to that suit) and the present respondents (who were defendants 3 and 4 to that suit), for a declaration that the petitioner has a right to benefits arising out of the immovable property as mortgage in possession including Shops Nos. 7-3-229 and 7-3-230 and that he is entitled to receive the rent of the suit shops in lieu of interest till the redemption of the mortgage. In that suit, it was held that Gulam Mohiuddin had mortgaged the property to the plaintiff by a registered Mortgage Deed dated 27th March, 1963 and that the plaintiff was entitled to receive the rent of the suit property in lieu of interest. Here it may be mentioned that in that suit, though defendants 3 and 4, namely the present respondents, were served they did not appear and the suit proceeded ex parte against them. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents had no notice about the mortgage created by Gulam Mohiuddin in favour of the petitioner, which was in fact a registered mortgage. Hence in coming to the conclusion that the respondents had no intimation about the mortgage, the learned Judge patently appears to be in error. 4. More glaring is, however, the finding of the learned District A Judge that even the tenancy of the respondents in favour of the mortgagor Gulam Mohiuddin has not been established. This is contrary to the record and contrary to the admitted position of the relationship of landlord and tenant between Gulam Mohiuddin on the one hand and the respondents on the other. This is contrary to the record and contrary to the admitted position of the relationship of landlord and tenant between Gulam Mohiuddin on the one hand and the respondents on the other. Even in their written statements before the Rent Controller, the respondents have admitted in terms that Gulam Mohiuddin is the owner and the respondents are his tenants. Thus, even assuming that the respondents had not attorned tenancy to the petitioner, the fact does remain that on the showing of the respondents themselves they are the tenants of the mortgagor, namely Gulam Mohiuddin. 5. It is not even the case of the respondents that for the period the petitioner claimed rents from them, they had paid rents to the mortgagor Gulam Mohiuddin. It is obvious that for this period, the respondents had paid then rents neither to the petitioners not to Gulam Mohiuddin. There can be no doubt that if the respondents had for this period, or any part thereof, paid the rents to Gulam Mohiuddin the petitioner would not have been justified in asking the respondents to pay the rents all over again to the petitioner. In view of the fact that the rents were not paid by the respondents even to Gulam Mohiuddin, the respondents were liable to pay this rent to the petitioner by virtue of the Mortgage Deed of which they had knowledge or must be deemed to have knowledge in the circumstances stated above. 6. Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that if the lessor transfers the property leased, or any thereof, or any part of this interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the country, shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred as long as he is the owner of it, provided that the transferee shall not be entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if lesses, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee. 7. In (Pashupati v. Durjodhan)1, A.I.R. 1943 Cal. 7. In (Pashupati v. Durjodhan)1, A.I.R. 1943 Cal. 160, it was held that when the mortgagee takes possession of the mortgaged property, wither on the basis of any contract or under the order of a Court, the tenants of the mortgage property are bound to pay rent to him alone and not to the mortgagor. The liability of the tenant to pay rent, therefore, is only to that person. He is, therefore, the tenant of that person. The person who becomes entitled to possess the mortgaged property either by contract or by operation of law becomes the landlord or the tenants of the mortgaged property. 8. Landlord is defined in section 2 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 as under :--- “Landlord includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive rent of a house, whether on his own account or on behalf of or for the benefit of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive rent or be entitled to receive rent if the house were let to a tenant.” 9. Thus in the light of this definition and the decision in (Pashupatis) case, coupled with the provisions of section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, there is no doubt that Gulam Mohiuddins tenants, namely the respondents, not having paid rents to him and having or being deemed to have knowledge of the possessory mortgage in favour of the petitioner, could not escape their liability to pay rents to the petitioner and also to Gulam Mohiuddin merely by alleging that there was no privity between the petitioner and the respondents. In coming to a conclusion otherwise, with respect, the learned District Judge was, in my humble opinion, in error which would merit interference by the revisional powers of this Court. The Rent Controller was correct when he came to the finding that--- “Since it is admitted by the defendants that they are the tenants of Gulam Mohiuddin and as the petitioner has got a decree in the Civil Court that he has right to receive the rent for his property, which were mortgaged by Gulam Mohiuddin.......I hold that the defendants by avoiding to pay the rent are wilful defaulters.” 10. In the result, the judgment and order of the learned District Judge is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the Rent Controller is confirmed. Rule is made absolute. As the respondents have not appeared, there will be no order as to costs. ------