( 1 ) THE question of law that calls for decision by us reads thus : -"whether a usufructuary mortgagee is a landlord for purposes of Part-ll of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961?"

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the controversy may be recapitulated : the jurisdictional HRC Revenue Inspector, vide his report dated 24-8-1981, intimated the vacancy of premises No. 24 (upstairs), Sri Subramanya Temple Street, v. V. Puram, Bangalore-4. Thereafter the vacancy was notified by the House rent Controller suo motu in HRC. ALT. 709/81. A notice under Sec. 8 (1) (a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was also issued to Smt. Kousalya Bai the owner of the premises. In the meanwhile, the writ-petitioner V. Vijendra also reported the vacancy of the premises. The vacancy was notified in HRC. ALT. 758/ 81. The petitioner was also served with notice under Sec. 8 (1 ) (a) of the Act. The claim of the petitioner for self occupation was on the ground that he is the mortgagee in possession and that the premises should be allotted in his favour for self-occupation. Respondent-3 was one of the applicants. The Rent Controller, after enquiry, al