The existence of a condition for providing basic amenities to a senior citizen must be established for the Maintenance Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep V. Marne, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. Petition takes an exception to the Order dated 31 October 2022 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act) by which the Tribunal has partly allowed the application filed by Respondent No.2-Father and has declared Gift Deeds executed on 21 June 2019 and 25 September 2020 as null and void with further directions to Petitioner to vacate and handover the possession of Flat Nos.2005 and 2006 at Riviera Towers CHS and Flat No.708 in Autumn Grove CHS to Respondent No.2-Father. The petition thus arises out of challenge to the Order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal under the provisions of Sections 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, by which Gift Deeds executed by Respondent No. 2-Father in favour of his son (Petitioner) are set aside.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent No.2- Rajendra K. Gupta filed application before the Maintenance Tribunal in February 2022 for return of various properties gifted by him to his son (Petitioner) and for payment of maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month. In the application, Respondent No.2 disclosed that he has three sons - Hemant, Sharad and Nitin and that his wife Binadevi Rajendra Gupta has expired on 18 February 2019. He claimed in the application that after the demise of his wife on 18 February 2019, Petitioner (Nitin Gupta) got executed four Gift Deeds in respect of various immovable properties from him as well as took into possession various other immovable properties. Respondent No.2 gave details of four Gift Deeds executed in favour of Petitioner as under:

i. Flat Nos.2005 and 2006, Riviera Tower CHS Limited, Lokhandwala Township, Kandivali (East), Mumbai;

These flats were purchased by Respondent No.2 and his wife in the year 2007. After the death of Binadevi, her 50% share in the flats devolved equally amongst all heirs. On 9 April 2019, Sharad Rajendra Gupta and Nitin Rajendra Gupta relinquished their shares in these two flats by registered Release Deed dated 9 April 2019. However, Hemant Rajendra Gupta did not relinquish his share and his share remained unaffected. That by Gift Deed dated 21 June 2019 and 25 September 2020, Petitioner got the entire Flat Nos. 2005 and 2006 transferred to his name.

ii. Flat No.708, Autumn Grove CHS Limited, Lokhandwala Township, Andheri (East), Mumbai;

This flat was jointly purchased by Respondent No.2, Binadevi and Nitin in the year 2015. After Binadevi's death, her share in the flat devolved equally amongst all the heirs. By Release Deed dated 9 April 2019, Sharad and Nitin relinquished their rights in respect of Flat No.708, while Hemant did not relinquish his share. That Petitioner, by Gift Deed executed by Respondent No. 2 on 21 June 2019 and 25 September 2020, got entire Flat No.708 transferred in his name.

iii. Flat No.502, 'Highland' Building No.3 CHS Lokhandwala Township, Kandivali (East), Mumbai;

This flat was owned by Binadevi Gupta and Petitioner got gift in respect of this flat executed in his name from Binadevi on 17 November 2016.

iv. Office No.8, The Hind Estate Building No.3B CHS, First Floor, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai;

This property was in the joint names of Gupta family members and the name of Respondent No.2 was mutated as Karta of the family. However, by Gift Deed dated 24 March 2017, Petitioner got this property also transferred in his name.

4. Respondent No.2 further contended in his application that after execution of various Gift Deeds in his favour, Petitioner started ill-treating him by removing all the servants and by confining him to one room. That on 14 April 2021 Respondent No.2 left Mumbai and went to Surat to reside with his other son Sharad. That he was forced to reside at Surat on account of ill-treatment given by Petitioner. He claimed that he neither