JUDGMENT : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. This second appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 42 of 2004 on the file of the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondents filed the suit for the relief of eviction from the suit schedule properties. It was pleaded that the 1st respondent purchased the suit schedule property through sale deed dated 27.03.1997 from one Mr. N. Sambashivudu and that gentleman in turn has purchased the property through sale deed dated 06.07.1982 from Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi. The original owner is said to be Smt. K. Ramulamma and from her, Jaya Lakshmi is said to have purchased the property on 11.08.1997. It was mentioned that a portion of the suit schedule property comprising of two rooms was let out to the 1st appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- and inspite of a notice being issued for vacating the premises, he did not comply with the same. Arrears to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- are said to have accumulated. 2. The 1st appellant filed a written statement opposing the suit. He stated that Ramulamma is none other than his wife and one Mr. Sambashivudu brought into existence the various documents, when he was approached in respect of a loan transaction. The relationship of tenant and landlord was totally denied and he pleaded that at no point of time, either the respondents were owners of the premises or that he was the tenant. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 06.04.2005. Aggrieved by that, the appellants filed A.S. No. 272 of 2005 in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Initially, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree. Thereupon, the respondents filed S.A. No. 1477 of 2007 before this Court. The second appeal was allowed on 09.08.2012 and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate Court for fresh consideration and disposal on certain aspects. After remand, the lower appellate Court dismissed A.S. No. 272 of 2005, through judgment, dated 15.07.2013. Hence, this second appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: "1. Whether the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is true, valid and binding on defendant? 2. whether the defendant is tenant of plaintiff? Hence, this second appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: "1. Whether the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is true, valid and binding on defendant? 2. whether the defendant is tenant of plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to eviction of defendants? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent of Rs. 1,12,000/- 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month?" 5. On behalf of the respondents, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A.1 to A. 20 were marked. The 1st appellant deposed as D.W.1 and filed Exs. B.1 to B.17. The suit was decreed and in the appeal preferred by the appellants, the lower appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: "1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff had established the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the defendant? 3. If so, whether the lease is legally terminated? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant and arrears of rent and profits? If so on what rate?" 6. The appeal was allowed. Thereupon, the respondents filed S.A. No. 1477 of 2007 before this Court. The second appeal was allowed on 09.08.2012 and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate Court for fresh consideration and disposal. After remand, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 7. The respondents claimed ownership to the property on the strength of a series of sale deeds. It is important to note that the starting point for those transactions is the sale deed said to have been executed by the wife of the 1st appellant. Whatever may have been the circumstances, under which the suit was filed for the relief of eviction simplicitor, atleast when the appellants denied the title of the respondents, steps ought to have been taken, to incorporate the relief as to title. No steps were taken in that direction. 8. Assuming that the defendant in a suit filed for eviction cannot dispute the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was under obligation to prove the basic and fundamental fact as to the commencement of lease or tenancy. No steps were taken in that direction. 8. Assuming that the defendant in a suit filed for eviction cannot dispute the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was under obligation to prove the basic and fundamental fact as to the commencement of lease or tenancy. It was the consistent case of the 1st respondent that he continued to be in possession of the premises as owner and at no pint of time, he was a lessee or tenant. Though the trial Court framed an issue touching upon the legality and binding nature of the sale deeds, the same was not permissible, unless the relief of declaration of title was claimed. Even if one goes by the series of sale deeds marked as Exs. A.1 to A. 3, it becomes clear that the appellants did not part with the possession at any point of time. 9. The 1st respondent is not the immediate purchaser from the 1st appellant. He is said to have purchased the property under Ex. A. 3 dated 27.03.1977 from one Mr. Sabasivudu (P.W.2). That gentleman in turn is stated to have purchased the property from the wife of the 1st appellant through sale deed, dated 30.06.1982 i.e., Ex. A.2. Though P.W.2 stated that after the purchase of property under Ex. A.2, the 1st respondent continued to be his tenant, no document whatsoever was filed in this behalf nor any recital in that document was identified. There is nothing on record to disclose that ever since the alleged purchase of property by the 1st respondent under Ex. A. 3, he has collected rents at any point of time. These important aspects were not taken into account by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. Though they may appear to be questions of fact, they would have a direct bearing upon the very maintainability of the suit and give raise to question of law. 10. The second appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgments of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court are set aside. It is however left open to the respondents to file a suit for declaration and for consequential relief. 11. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Disposed off