ORDER The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlady. R.C.C. No. 01 of 1998 was filed by the landlady on the file of learned Rent Controller/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents and that the petition schedule premises is required bona fide for additional accommodation of the medical business, was dismissed by the order dated 21-01-2002. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady filed C.M.A.No.14 of 2002 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and the appellate court, by the order dated 21-12-2005, allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rents and also on the ground that the petition schedule premises is required bona fide by the landlady. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed this civil revision petition. 2. Sri C.B. Rammohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that the learned Rent Controller rightly considered rival contentions and dismissed the eviction petition. But the appellate court, had erroneously allowed the appeal on the ground that there was wilful default in payment of rents as the rents deposited in the suit filed by the tenant cannot be treated as the rents payable under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act) and therefore there is a wilful default in payment of rents and that the petition schedule premises is required bona fide. It is contended that the vendor of the landlady mortgaged the petition schedule property in favour of the tenant by three registered mortgage deeds and according to the clauses of the mortgage deeds, the landlord cannot alienate the petition schedule property and therefore there is no relationship of the landlady and tenant and the learned Rent Controlier has no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition. Sri. T. Durga Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the landlady contended that the Rent Appellate Court rightly allowed the eviction petition. 3. Sri. T. Durga Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the landlady contended that the Rent Appellate Court rightly allowed the eviction petition. 3. The questions that arise for consideration are as to whether the landlady was stepped into the shoes of her vendor, who admittedly mortgaged the petition schedule property in favour of the tenant; and if that be so, whether the landlady can be treated as landlord within the deflation of the provisions of the Act; and whether the tenant, who is a mortgage continues to be the tenant of the landlord; whether the petition schedule premises is required bona fide by the landlady for opening another shop for the landladys family business in the pharmaceuticals in addition to the medical shop already they have got in the licensed premises. 4. To decide the said issues, brief averments of the eviction petition, counter affidavit, oral and documentary evidence have to be considered. As per the averments of the eviction petition, it is stated by the landlady that the petition schedule premises belongs to Ruttala Gangaraju, who was original owner and the tenant has taken the petition schedule premises on rent from the said Ruttala Gangaraju in January, 1994 on a monthly rent of Rs. 550-00, which was enhaced to Rs.625-00 with effect from 01-3-1995 and that the landlady purchased the said property vide Ex. A-1-registered sale deed dated 13-3-1997 from Ruttala Ganga Raju and tenant is aware about the said purchase and accordingly landlady got issued registered notice Ex. A-2 dated 15-07-1997 informing him about the purchase and demanded the tenant to vacate the petition schedule premises, for which, the tenant issued a reply notice – Ex. A-3 dated 02-08-1997 with untenable allegations. It is stated that the tenant also filed a suit O.S.No. 63 of 1997 on the file of learned Principal District Munsif, Tadepalligudem against the original owner - Ruttala Ganga Raju and his wife for permanent injunction in March, 1997 and is depositing the rents in the said suit, but he did not deposit the arrears of rent and the landlady is not a party to the said suit and the deposit of the monthly rents cannot be treated as a valid payment of rents to the landlady and accordingly contended that there is a wilful default in payment of the rent on the part of the tenant. The allegations in the reply notice that the husband of the landlady got the building demolished on the night of 12/13-09-1997, removed shutters and committed theft of cloth and sewing machines causing loss of about Rs. 1,50,000-00 were denied. It is further alleged that the landladys family business in pharmaceuticals (medical stores) is required to be expanded by opening another shop in the petition schedule premises using the shop in the east of the petition schedule premises as godown. So the landlady needs the premises for her personal occupation. Thus, the landlady filed the eviction petition on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents for the months of September and December 1994 and from February, 1995 till the purchase of the petition schedule property on 13-03-1997. 5. The tenant filed counter stating that Ruttala Ganga Raju is the owner of the petition schedule premises and the tenant has taken the said premises on rent in August, 1987, but not in January, 1994 as alleged by the landlady. The tenant is paying the monthly rents and the said Ruttala Ganga Raju had collected the amount of Rs.15,000-00 as advance from the tenant which is repayable at the time of evicting the petition schedule premises; and that the said Ruttala Ganga Raju or his wife used to collect the rents; and that the allegation that the tenant did not pay the rents due for the months of September and December, 1994 and from 01-02-1995 onwards is incorrect and in fact the rents were paid and there was no default in payment of rents. It is further stated that the said Ruttala Ganga Raju was always in need of money and he used to collect the rents every month without fail and the said Ruttala Ganga Raju, who was in need of money for his family, borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000-00 from the tenant on 05-05-1994 and executed a registered mortgage deed and again borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000-00 on 13-06-1995 and executed a registered mortgage deed; and again an amount of Rs.50,000-00 was borrowed and executed a registered mortgage deed on 17-08-1996. The said Ruttala Ganga Raju did not pay those amounts even though several demands were made. The said Ruttala Ganga Raju did not pay those amounts even though several demands were made. Therefore, it is stated that the sale deed said to have been obtained by the landlady on 13-03-1997 is collusive, nominal and without any consideration; that the said sale deed is said to have been obtained by the landlady with a view to evict the tenant from the petition schedule premises; that one Valavala Suryanarayana was said to have entered into an agreement of sale with Ruttala Ganga Raju and he was also claiming rent for the petition schedule premises and warned the tenant not to pay the rents to Ruttala Ganga Raju or the landlady. Ruttala Ganga Raju, who bore grudge against the tenant, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property and therefore the tenant filed a suit O.S. No. 63 of 1987 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem against Ruttala Gangaraju and his wife seeking injunction. To Ex. A-2 notice dated 15-07-1997, the tenant filed a reply Ex. A-3 dated 02-8-1997 denying all the allegations. It is further stated that in the course of removing the encroachments in K.N. Road, the pials in front of the petition schedule premises were treated as encroachment and a part of pial was removed and taking advantage of the removal of encroachment by the Government, the landlady, her husband along with hired rowdies made an attempt to forcibly evict the tenant on the intervening night of 12/13-9-1997, they made a hole to roof of the building, entered into the building, removed the shutter, damaged the articles and took away tailoring material, clothes, sewing machines and caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,50,000-00. Therefore, the tenant has filed police complaint, which was registered in Crime No. 209 of 1997. After investigation, charge sheet was also filed and was numbered as C.C. No. 338 of 1997 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem and the offenders were also arrested and remanded to judicial custody. It is further stated that in fact landlady filed O.S. No.105 of 1997 on the file of learned Senior Judge, Tadepalligudem for permanent injunction which was contested by the tenant. The tenant never removed or demolished any part of the building. 6. It is further stated that in fact landlady filed O.S. No.105 of 1997 on the file of learned Senior Judge, Tadepalligudem for permanent injunction which was contested by the tenant. The tenant never removed or demolished any part of the building. 6. With regard to the personal occupation, it is stated that the landlady or her husband has no business in pharmaceuticals and therefore extending their business by opening additional shop in the schedule premises does not arise and their claim is not bona fide. It is stated that eviction petitioner is not a landlady and there is no tenant and landlady relationship between the parties and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition. It is stated that as per the advice, the tenant deposited the rents to the credit of O.S. No. 63 of 1997 and is continuing to deposit the rents to the credit of the suit. The landlady is Smt. Adapa Krishnakumari and the tenant is Sri Meesala Srinivasarao. 7. The husband of the landlady - Adapa Venkateswara Rao was examined as P.W.1 and stated that his wife purchased the petition schedule property under Ex. A-1 registered sale deed. The tenant committed default in payment of rents for the months of September and December, 1994 and from February, 1995 till the purchase of the petition schedule property. After purchase of the property, the landlady got issued Ex. A-2 notice to pay the rents and also to vacate the premises, for which, Ex. A-3 reply was given by the tenant. It is further submitted that since the landlady is entitled to the arrears of rent, he came to know that the tenant deposited arrears of rent to the credit of O.S.No.63 of 1997, which was filed against Ruttala Gangaraju. It is stated that the tenant is not having any intention to pay the rents. P.W.1 is doing medical business since 1980 in a rented shop and after evicting the tenant, he wanted to shift his business into the petition schedule property to increase his business. It is stated that the petition schedule property is not sufficient for his wholesale business and therefore P.W.1 wants to construct three storied building for his business purpose after demolishing the existing structures. It is stated that the petition schedule property is not sufficient for his wholesale business and therefore P.W.1 wants to construct three storied building for his business purpose after demolishing the existing structures. It is accepted that as on the date of purchase of the petition schedule property by the landlady, the tenant was running tailoring shop and in the sale deed Ex. A-1 it was not mentioned about tenant committed default in payment of agreed rents for the months of September and December, 1994 and from 01-02-1995. It is stated that the sale consideration was paid in cash at the time of preparation of Ex. A-1 sale deed in front of the office of SubRegistrar. It is stated that after purchase, there is no fresh lease agreement. Valavala Suryanarayana never raised any objection about his alleged agreement of sale. Before purchase of the property, P.W.1 obtained encumbrance certificate, but the same was not filed and therefore there are no encumbrances on the petition schedule property as per the recitals in the encumbrance certificate. The allegation that the vendor of landlady borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000-00 and Rs.20,000-00 vide registered mortgage deeds dated 05-09-1994 and 13-06-1995 mortgaging the petition schedule property, was denied. The recitals in Ex. A-1-Sale deed that the petition schedule property was delivered to the landlady is incorrect, but the tenant was only in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule premises. It is admitted that when a complaint was made by the tenant, the Police, Tadepalligudem registered a case and filed charge sheet in C.C. No. 338 of 1997 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepallidugem alleging that the landlady and P.W.1 caused damages to the petition schedule premises and also on the ground that they have committed theft of certain articles. The landlady filed O.S. No.105 of 1997 and obtained injunction against the tenant. The suggestion that the landlady in collusion with her vendor have created Ex. A-1-Sale deed with a view to evict the tenant was denied. It is stated that P.W. 1 does not know whether his father-in-law has got any account to show that the landlady paid the entire sale consideration under EX.A-1. 8. P.W.2 who is maintaining flower shop, stated that P.W.1.is maintaining medical shop, which is about 28 square yards. 9. P.W. 3 also stated that P.W.1 was having medical shop. P.Ws. It is stated that P.W. 1 does not know whether his father-in-law has got any account to show that the landlady paid the entire sale consideration under EX.A-1. 8. P.W.2 who is maintaining flower shop, stated that P.W.1.is maintaining medical shop, which is about 28 square yards. 9. P.W. 3 also stated that P.W.1 was having medical shop. P.Ws. 2 to 4 were examined to prove the fact that the petition schedule premises is required for additional accommodation· for opening of another medical shop. P.W.5 who is the son of Ruttala Ganga Raju, stated that they have sold the petition schedule property for a sum of Rs. 1,86,500-00 in favour of the landlady by executing the registered sale deed Ex. A-1 and he received the sale consideration. In the cross-examination, it is stated that his father is hale and healthy and he also came to the court on the date of his crossexamination (12-07-2001) along with him. P.W.5 got one sister and one brother. They have borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000-00 on one occasion and on another occasion Rs.20,000-00 by executing two registered mortgage deeds in favour of the tenant with regard to the petition schedule property. With regard to the execution of third mortgage deed for a sum of Rs.50,000-00 it was denied. In EX.A-1-Sale deed, it was not mentioned about the occupancy of the petition schedule premises by the tenant. The brother and sister of P.W. 5 are not parties to the sale deed - Ex.A-1. P.W. 5, his father and motl1er used to collect rents from the tenant and he denied the signatures shown to him on the book are not the signatures of his parents. They have not tried to pay the mortgage amount to the tenant. They have also not given any notice to the tenant before the sale of the petition schedule property under Ex. A-1. Before the sale of the petition schedule property also they have not given any notice with regard to arrears of rent. The suggestion that the tenant never committed wilful default in payment of rent was denied. The purchaser of neighbouring shop of the petition schedule property was examined as P.W.6. P.W.6 stated that he does not know before purchasing of the neighboring shop by him whether Valavala Suryanarayana and P.T.V. Kumar purchased the petition schedule property as well as his shop from Ruttala Ganga Raju. The purchaser of neighbouring shop of the petition schedule property was examined as P.W.6. P.W.6 stated that he does not know before purchasing of the neighboring shop by him whether Valavala Suryanarayana and P.T.V. Kumar purchased the petition schedule property as well as his shop from Ruttala Ganga Raju. In the shop purchased by P.W. 6, his brother is doing tailoring business. It is stated that the petition schedule property purchased by the landlady is self-acquired property of Ruttala Ganga Raju. 10. The tenant himself examined as R.W. 1 and stated that at the time of giving the petition schedule premises on lease to him, he has paid an amount of Rs. 15,000-00 to landlord-Ruttala Ganga Raju, which was agreed to be repaid at the time of vacation. Thereafter Ruttala Ganga Raju borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,0000; Rs. 20,000-00 and Rs. 50,000-00 by executing registered mortgage deeds. R.W.1 further states that he never committed default in payment of rents. In the year 1997, R.W. 1 was requested for enhancement of rent for which he refused and then landlord tried to evict him from the petition schedule premises and hence he filed O.S. No.63 of 1997 and obtained temporary injunction. Thereafter only the landlord - Ruttala Ganga Raju sold the property in favour of the landlady in collusion with a view to evict him from the petition schedule premises and accordingly he has started depositing the rents to the credit of the suit O.S.No. 63 of 1997, which was later withdrawn and deposited the said amount to the credit of eviction petition and is regularly depositing the rents to the credit of the rent control case. The eviction petitioner-landlady also filed O.S. No.105 of 1997 alleging that the tenant (sic. landlord) has delivered the possession of the petition schedule property to her and the tenant is trying to construct a building and therefore the landlady is entitled for injunction. But it appears that the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh suit subsequently. At that time, the eviction petitioner and her husband caused damage to the roof of the shop and taken away the sewing machines, clothes etc., belonging to the customers and causing loss to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000-00 and therefore he has filed a complaint before the police. With regard to the advancement of amount of Rs. At that time, the eviction petitioner and her husband caused damage to the roof of the shop and taken away the sewing machines, clothes etc., belonging to the customers and causing loss to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000-00 and therefore he has filed a complaint before the police. With regard to the advancement of amount of Rs. 15,000-00 he has not obtained any receipt. But the suggestion that he never gave any advance amount of Rs. 15,000-00 was denied. It is stated that the rents were regularly paid. It is stated that the rents for the months of September and December, 1997 were only paid on 01-05-1998 i.e., after filing of the rent control case which was filed on 10-02-1998, but ultimately after complying with the objections, it was registered on 11-06-1998. Admittedly the rents up to December, 1997 to March, 1998 were deposited on 01-05-1998 i.e., even before the rent control case was registered and subsequent rents were also deposited: Insofar as the rents payable to the original vendor from March, 1997 to November, 1997 were deposited on 20-7-1998. 11. Valaval a Suryanarayana was examined as R.W. 2. He deposed that Ruttala Gangaraju got four shops and he has purchased the petition schedule property and three other properties under Ex. A-1 and he has also got issued telegraphic notice to Ruttala Ganga Raju and there were also certain exchange of notices with regard to the purchase of petition schedule property between him and Ruttala Ganga Raju. It is stated that Ruttala Ganga Raju has got three shops on K.N. Road and two shops were sold to Akasapu Narasimhamurthy and he does not know whether the landlady Adapa Krishnakumari purchased the petition schedule premises. The door number of the petition schedule premises is 3-1-12/3; whereas the property purchased by R.W. 2Valavala Suryanarayana is 3-1-12/4 under EX.X-1. The door number of the property purchased by P.W. 6 also 3-1-12/3, but it is stated that the boundaries are different. Therefore, it is stated that he does not know whether Kusuma Kumari purchased the property bearing door No. 3-1-12/3 or not, but he has purchased the abutting shop bearing door No. 3-1-12/4. R.W. 3 was examined to prove the theft of articles by the landlady and her husband. 12. Therefore, it is stated that he does not know whether Kusuma Kumari purchased the property bearing door No. 3-1-12/3 or not, but he has purchased the abutting shop bearing door No. 3-1-12/4. R.W. 3 was examined to prove the theft of articles by the landlady and her husband. 12. From the aforesaid evidence, the admitted facts are that Ruttala Ganga Raju was the owner of the petition schedule premises bearing door No. 3-1-12/3 situated at K.N. Road, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari district ad-measuring 28 square yards and the rent that was agreed to pay the tenant to the said Ruttala Ganga Raju, as admitted by the tenant, was Rs. 625-00 as on the date of filing of eviction petition. There is also no dispute with regard to the execution of mortgage deeds by taking a loan of Rs. 15,000-00 and Rs. 20,000-00 respectively under registered mortgage deeds i.e., 05-09-1994 and 13-06-1995, though the son of Ruttala Ganga Raju disputed the execution of mortgage deed for an amount of Rs. 50,000-00 dated 17-08-1996, but there was no cross-examination of R. W.1 with regard to the said three mortgage deeds. Though the tenant has taken a plea of advance deposit of Rs. 15,000-00 admittedly there was no receipt in proof of his contention that he has advanced a sum of Rs. 15,000-00 towards advance rent. There is also no dispute that Ruttala Ganga Raju never issued any notice with regard to payment of arrears of rents. It is also not in dispute that Ruttala Ganga Raju has not at all discharged the amount due under the mortgage deeds as admitted by his son-P.W.5. Admittedly, Ruttala Ganga Raju never entered into the witness box to rebut the allegations with regard to the third mortgage deed of borrowing a sum of Rs. 50,000-00 from the tenant and execution of a registered mortgage deed dated 17 -08-1996. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the mortgage of the petition schedule property by Ruttala Ganga Raju, the vendor of the landlady in favour of the tenant. If that be so, whether the relationship of landlady and tenant ceases to exist. 50,000-00 from the tenant and execution of a registered mortgage deed dated 17 -08-1996. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the mortgage of the petition schedule property by Ruttala Ganga Raju, the vendor of the landlady in favour of the tenant. If that be so, whether the relationship of landlady and tenant ceases to exist. No doubt, as per the definition of landlord under Section 2(vi) of the Act, the landlord means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf 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 the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant. The definition of tenant as per the Act means, any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son or daughter, of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of tenants family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building, by its tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter-house or of rents for shops has been framed out or leased by a local authority. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the landlord and tenant relationship between Ruttala Ganga Raju and the tenant. When the petition schedule premises was leased out either in August, 1987 as alleged by the tenant or in January, 1994 as alleged by the landlord is not of much importance. Admittedly, after January, 1994, there was a registered mortgage deed i.e., on 5-9-1994 by borrowing a sum of Rs. 15,000-00 by Ruttala Ganga Raju and thereafter the said Ruttala Ganga Raju borrowed another sum of Rs. 20,000-00 and executed a registered mortgage deed on 13-6-1995 and thereafter though it was alleged that Ruttala Ganga Raju borrowed further sum of Rs. Admittedly, after January, 1994, there was a registered mortgage deed i.e., on 5-9-1994 by borrowing a sum of Rs. 15,000-00 by Ruttala Ganga Raju and thereafter the said Ruttala Ganga Raju borrowed another sum of Rs. 20,000-00 and executed a registered mortgage deed on 13-6-1995 and thereafter though it was alleged that Ruttala Ganga Raju borrowed further sum of Rs. 50,000-00 and executed a registered mortgage deed on 17-08-1996, the son of Ruttala Ganga Raju denied the said fact, but Ruttala Ganga Raju never denied the said averment. If there is a transfer of property by sale or exchange the purchaser becomes the landlord and entitle to receive the rent and that the tenant will continue to be the tenant of the purchaser. If the tenant himself purchases, he becomes the owner of the property. 13. The further question that arises for consideration is as to whether the relationship of the landlady and tenant further continuous (sic. continues) even after the execution of the registered mortgage deed pursuant to the borrower of money by the borrower (landlord) from the tenant. It is not in dispute that the sale, exchange, mortgages are the alienations as defined within the meaning of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short the T.P. Act). The sale and exchange are absolute alienations, but the mortgage is conditional alienation. As long as the mortgage amount is not discharged, the mortgage has got a right over the mortgaged property and insofar as mortgage amount the right of mortgagor is only to redeem the mortgage amount. Thus, there is no dispute that Ruttala Ganga Raju is mortgagor and the tenant herein is mortgage. Under Section 58 of the T.P. Act, a mortgage is the transfer of interest in specific immoveable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary liability. The transferor is called a mortgagor, the transferee a mortgage; the principal money and interest of which payment is secured for the time being are called the mortgage-money, and the instrument (if any) by which the transfer is effected is called a mortgage-deed. Thus, Ruttala Ganga Raju became a mortgagor and the tenant became mortgage. The transferor is called a mortgagor, the transferee a mortgage; the principal money and interest of which payment is secured for the time being are called the mortgage-money, and the instrument (if any) by which the transfer is effected is called a mortgage-deed. Thus, Ruttala Ganga Raju became a mortgagor and the tenant became mortgage. In the aforesaid circumstances, by virtue of the mortgage deeds eclipses the relationship of landlord and tenant and therefore the landlord became a mortgagor and the tenant became the mortgage. If that be so, as the relationship of the landlord and tenant discontinued by reason of the mortgage deeds, the Rent Controller cannot exercise the jurisdiction under the Act to decide the question of wilful default etc., In view of the discontinuance of relationship of landlord and tenant, the question of bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises by the eviction petitioner does not arise. 14. In the instant case, the vendor of the landlady mortgaged the petition schedule property creating an interest in favour of the tenant as a security for payment of advance received by· him. As long as that money is not repaid, the tenant has got a specific right over the said property for recovery of the advanced money from within the said security i.e., petition schedule property. For instance, if the said Ruttala Ganga Raju sold the petition schedule property in favour of the tenant himself, the tenant himself becomes owner/landlord. Therefore, under the T.P. Act, whenever there is a sale, exchange or mortgage relating to the transfer of property that will override the earlier relationship of landlord and tenant. 15. Under Section 7 of the Act, the landlord shall not receive any premium or like sum in addition to the agreed rent. If any premium or like sum in addition to the one months advance of agreed rent, is in deposit with the landlord, he shall refund or adjust the same towards the rents under Section 7(2)(b) of the Act. Under Section 7(3) of the Act any receipt of the premium or like sum in addition to the agreed rent is null and void. Therefore, in this view also it cannot be said that there is a wilful default in payment of rents by the tenant. 16. Under Section 7(3) of the Act any receipt of the premium or like sum in addition to the agreed rent is null and void. Therefore, in this view also it cannot be said that there is a wilful default in payment of rents by the tenant. 16. Therefore, I am of the opinion, the tenant has rightly denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in view of the aforesaid mortgage deeds and as long as either the eviction petitioner or her vendor discharges the mortgage money, they cannot be continued to be called as landlord, but they are mortgagors. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that though the said contention was not specifically pleaded and advanced before the Rent Controller and the lower appellate Court and that being the question of law, I am of the opinion that the Rent Controller is not having jurisdiction to entertain the dispute with regard to the wilful default in payment of rent and other questions. 17. In view of the aforesaid analysis and circumstances, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment of the lower appellate court in C.M.A. No. 14 of 2002 dated 21-12-2005 and confirming the judgment dated 21-01-2002 in R.C.C. No. 01 of 1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. No order as to costs.