Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- The petitioner has raised a question about the jurisdiction of the respondents No.1 and 2 to pass an order of eviction against him under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2. In brief, Rachpal Singh (respondent No.3) is married to Sarabjeet Kaur (respondent No.4) and both are residing in House No.40, Gali No.2, Gurunanakpur, Pingali Road, Karnal. He is a retired teacher. He has two sons and one daughter, who all are married. The elder son of respondent No.3 is mentally retarded from the last 25 years and his younger son Manjit Singh (petitioner) is living in the aforesaid house of respondent No.3. Since the petitioner was allegedly misbehaving with respondent No.3, he filed an application under Section 23 of the Act, which was allowed by respondent No.2 on 16.02.2015, holding that the house in question belongs to respondent No.3 and ordered eviction of the petitioner and his family. This order was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the District Magistrate without any success as the appeal was also dismissed on 02.09.2015 and hence, the present petition has been filed to challenge both the orders.

3. The only argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the order of eviction could not have been passed by respondents No.1 and 2 on an application filed under Section 23 of the Act which only deals with the issue of maintenance. It is rather sought to be argued that there is no provision under the Act under which the eviction order could be passed.

4. Although notice of motion was not issued in this case but counsel for the State was asked by the Court to assist on the issue of jurisdiction of respondents No.1 and 2 in passing the order of eviction.

5. Counsel for the State has submitted that as per Section 22(2) of the Act, the State Government had to prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection to the life and property of the senior citizens which has to be notified in terms of Rule 24 of the Haryana Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). He has also produced a copy of the notification No.530SW-(4)- 2015 dated 26.05.2015 issued by the Haryana Government, Social Justice & Empowerment Department, Haryana, in which the action plan for protection of life and property of senior citizens has been provided, which includes the procedure for eviction from the property/residential building belonging to/occupied by Senior Citizen/Parents.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.

7. Since the issue involved in this case is only of law, therefore, I would first refer to Section 23 and then Section 22 of the Act and Rule 24 of the Rules, which are reproduced as under:-

Section 23 of the Act

“23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.— (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right.

(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organization referred to in Explanation