The central legal point established is the applicability of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 in cases of failure to provide basic amenities and physical needs to a senior citizen after a property transfer.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 21.12.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 14.07.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.3, who is a senior citizen aged more than 84 years had by virtue of a transfer deed dated 11.07.2019, transferred the house in question measuring 198 square yards in the name of the present petitioner who is the son of respondent No.3. In the said transfer deed, specific mention was made with respect to the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 2007') and also mentioned that the transferee should provide for all the basic facilities for the maintenance of the transferor and would also fulfill the necessary requirements of the transferor and in case of not doing so, the transferor would have a right to take the property back and it was further stated in the said transfer deed that if any party to the transfer deed is guilty of violating any condition then the transfer deed would become void. Further perusal of the transfer deed would show that it was mentioned that respondent No.3 had purchased the property vide registered sale deed No.3438 dated 13.08.1997 and mutation regarding the same was sanctioned on 26.03.2018. Respondent No.3 filed an application dated 23.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) under the Act of 2007 against the present petitioner, wife of the petitioner (respondent No.4) and his second son Naresh (respondent No.5), on the averments that respondent No.3 was 84 years of age and was a Senior Citizen and in the year 1997, he had purchased the property in question and had constructed a house thereon and thereafter, had transferred the said property vide transfer deed dated 11.07.2019 in favour of the present petitioner. It was averred that for sometime, the petitioner and his wife were taking care of respondent No.3 and his wife but thereafter, they stopped taking care of them and did not treat them well. It was averred that even food was not served on time and wife of respondent No.3 was suffering from cancer and no proper care was given to her and thereafter, respondent No.3 was thrown out of the house. It was averred that thereafter, respondent No.3 went to live with his other son namely Naresh (respondent No.5) but the said respondent No.5 also did not serve respondent No.3 and told respondent No.3 that since he had transferred the house in favour of the petitioner then he should go and stay with the petitioner and by placing reliance upon the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act of 2007 a prayer was made in the application (Annexure P-2) for cancellation of the transfer deed and further prayer was made for delivering the possession of the property to respondent No.3.

3. A joint reply was filed by the petitioner, respondent Nos.4 and 5 and a perusal of the said reply would show that the fact that respondent No.3 was a senior citizen was admitted as averments in para 1 of the application was stated to be true and correct and even the averments made in the application to the effect that 18 acres of land belonging to the grandfather of the petitioner had been transferred in favour of the petitioner and his brother-respondent No.5 had not been disputed. The SDM-cum-Maintenance Tribunal, Sonipat vide order dated 14.07.2023 (Annexure P4), after hearing both the parties, accepted the said application and set aside the transfer deed dated 11.07.2019 and restored the ownership of respondent No.3-applicant and directed the Tehsildar/Sub Tehsildar Sonipat to enter the mutation in favour of respondent No.3. Further direction was given to the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 to behave properly with respondent No.3 and also provide facilities and medicines