The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens' Act, 2007 in the context of a gifted property and the rights of the parents in such a situation.

Arijit Banerjee, J.

Re : CAN 5991 of 2017.

As per the report of the Stamp Reporter, the instant appeal was filed within the period of limitation.

2. Under such circumstances, Mr. Das, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant submits that his client will not press the application for condonation of delay.

The application for condonation of delay is, thus, disposed of.

Re : M.A.T. 993 of 2017.

3. The appellant before us is the son of the writ petitioners/respondents. The appellant contends that flat no.10/2 on the second floor of premises no.6, Sunny Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata - 700019 was gifted to him by his mother who was the sole owner of the said flat by execution of a registered deed of gift on 29th April, 2015. The appellant contends that he has been residing in the said flat.

4. The parents of the appellant approached the Maintenance Tribunal, set up under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens' Act, 2007 (the said Act), alleging that the appellant herein exerted undue emotional influence on them and thereby procured the deed of gift. They wanted cancellation of the said deed of gift under Section 23 of the said Act. They further alleged before the Tribunal that their son being the appellant herein was permitting them to reside in the said flat and they had no other place of residence in Kolkata.

5. The learned Tribunal directed the appellant herein to allow his parents to reside in the said flat until they can arrange accommodation for themselves. The prayer for cancellation of the deed of gift made by the appellant's parents was rejected by the learned Tribunal.

6. Being aggrieved, the parents of the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. No.8972(W) of 2016 and an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 16th august, 2016 which reads as follows:-

"In the meantime, the parties are directed to comply with the order dated April 19, 2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal at Kolkata and the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station shall ensure due compliance in the event there is any allegation of breach thereof.

In the event, the private respondent no. 4 fails to comply with the order as aforesaid, it shall be open to the officer-in-charge to take necessary steps for making the premises-in-question available to the petitioners for their residential accommodation in terms of the order dated April 19, 2016 by resorting to appropriate measures breaking open the padlocks, if necessary."

7. The writ petition was finally disposed of by a judgment and order dated 12th May, 2017. The learned Single Judge confirmed the earlier interim order. The learned Judge further ordered that the appellant herein being the respondent no. 4 before the learned single Judge shall not, in the life time of the petitioners, interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said flat. Further, the respondent no. 4 shall take out any proceeding or continue any proceeding for eviction of the writ petitioners from the said flat. It was further ordered that the writ petitioners would part with possession of the property. The parties were granted liberty to move any Court or Forum for adjudging the validity of the gift or its alleged revocation without insisting on any order for eviction of the writ petitioners.

8. Being aggrieved, the son being the respondent no.4 before the learned Single Judge, has preferred the instant appeal.

9. In spite of service nobody appears on behalf of the writ petitioners/respondents.

10. We have heard Mr. Naba Kumar Das, learned Counsel for the appellant, and also Mr. Banibrata Dutta, learned Counsel for the state respondents.

11. We have carefully gone through a copy of the deed of gift dated 29th April, 2015. It is clear that the flat in question was gifted absolutely and unconditionally to the appellant reserving no right at all to the donor being the mother of the appellant. No conditions were attached that the appella