AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. The instant writ petition is instituted by Virender Singh and others, i.e., son, daughter-in-law and grandson of respondent No.3 – Shanti Devi, aged 87 years which has arisen out of the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 under Section 3 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Act 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “2007 Act”), whereby, she had sought the eviction of the petitioners from House No.247/29 Ramgopal Colony, Rohtak.

2. The respondent-complainant in a complaint averred that she has six daughters, one son and her husband, Jagbir Singh died of malignancy/cancer, who, as per the registered Will dated 7.10.2010, bequeathed the entire property in her favour, whereas, the petitioners, herein, are the residents of Australia and whenever they come to India, they threatened her and do not allow her relatives to enter into house due to which she is facing great hardship. In fact, her life and liberty to live with security and dignity are at stake. In the proceedings initiated by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who on the basis of the statement suffered by petitioner No.1-Virender Singh, regarding giving ground floor to his mother, disposed of the petition. The aforementioned finding was assailed by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who vide order dated 27.01.2016 while accepting the appeal directed the petitioners to handover the vacant possession of aforesaid house to respondent No.3 within 30 days.

3. Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that no doubt, the Will aforementioned, executed by late Jagbir Singh is in existence but the fact remains that during his life, he had executed a gift deed (Annexure P-4) in respect of the property in favour of his grandson, petitioner No.3, thus, the finding of the District Magistrate by taking into consideration the mutation on the basis of the Will is wholly erroneous and perverse. The registered document has conferred a title on petitioner no.3 and therefore, the jurisdiction could not have been invoked and the parties were required to be relegated to the Civil Court for adjudication of the lis.

4. Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, on instructions from his client/ petitioner no.1-Virender Singh, who is present in the Court, submits that he is willing to provide all the facilities to his old ailing mother, like car, ground floor etc., thus, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, Mr. S.S. Lamba, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 submits that there is a categoric averment in the complaint of using the premises as godown and the factum of Australian Citizen has not been denied, in view of the statement recorded by Sub-Divisional Magistrate extracted in the order of District Magistrate which reads as under:-

“Stated that the house measuring 420 sq. yards have been gifted by my father Sh. Jagbir Singh to his grandson Rohit Nagpal vide gift deed No.6699 dated 03.10.2013 (Copy enclosed. Therefore, the real owner of the house is Rohit Nandal. Sub Divisional Magistrate did not issue notice to Rohit Nandal and the said gift deed No.6699 dated 03.10.2013 was in possession of Rohit Nandal. He is owner in possession of the said house and no notice has been issued to him even in appeal. This is our family matter and my mother has been staying in this house peacefully for many years. After the death of my father I left my job to take care of my mother and have stayed alone from March, 2014 to January 2015. During this time my wife Seema Nandal was living in Australia and my mother had no complaint till January 2015 and she was very happy. I went to Australia for 3 months on 12.01.2015. At my back, in March, 2015 she left the house under the influence of some people and I had to arrange for the security of the vacant house from Melbourne. Now there are no. of allegations being leveled against me. As per the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 11.09.2015, I v