Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral):- This petition is filed in order to challenge the order dated 24.12.2012 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Mohali, order dated 21.01.2014 passed by Appellate Tribunal, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) and also transfer deed dated 23.05.2008 executed by the petitioner in respect of H. No. 1070, Phase-9, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) in favour of respondent No.3 ( his daughter).

2. In short, the petitioner is, allegedly, 77 years of age and is a senior citizen. He was the owner of H. No. 1070, Phase-9, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) which was transferred by him in favour of his daughter/respondent No.3 by way of a transfer deed dated 23.05.2008. It is alleged that on 24.08.2008, respondent No.3 gave an undertaking that she would re-transfer the house in question in the name of her father as and when he desires within next two years or so. Respondent No. 3 did not honour her undertaking and hence, the petitioner filed an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mohali under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act’). The said application was dismissed on 24.12.2012 on the ground that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit in respect of the property in dispute and, therefore, the application was not maintainable.

3. Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which was also dismissed on the same ground on 21.1.2014. It is needless to mention that the application was filed by the petitioner after withdrawing the civil suit for declaration in which he had claimed that respondent No.3 was bound to re-transfer the house in view of her undertaking dated 23.05.2008 but it is contended that due to ill advice the said suit was withdrawn and the application was filed in the end.

4. After notice, the respondents have filed their respective replies.

5. Counsel for the petitioner while pressing this petition, referred to Section 23 of the Act to contend that since respondent No.3 is not providing the basic amenities and satisfying the basic physical needs of the petitioner, therefore, the transfer made by him shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and may be declared void.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that Section 23 of the Act would not be applicable to this case because it is applicable if the transfer was conditional that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

8. In order to appreciate the arguments, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 23 of the Act, which reads as under :-

“23(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 influence and shall at the option f 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 to sub-section (1) of section 5.”

9. Further reading of Section 2(h) along with Section 23 of the Act, it would emerge that in order to maintain applicati