Failure to provide basic amenities to a senior citizen, as stipulated in a property transfer deed, justifies cancellation of the transfer under Section 23 of the 2007 Act.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Deepak Sibal, J. (Oral)

The present intra Court appeal originates from the judgment dated 07.12.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition filed by him for setting aside the order dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Patiala (for short, the Magistrate) while exercising powers of the Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, the 2007 Act).

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent No.1 filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala (for short, the Tribunal) seeking therein cancellation of the transfer deed of a shop in Patiala dated 11.05.2016 executed by him in favour of the appellant, who is his son. According to respondent No.1 the transfer deed in question had been made subject to the appellant taking care of respondent No.1 with a further stipulation therein that in case the appellant did not do so then, in terms of Section 23 of 2007 Act, the transfer deed was liable to be cancelled. Since after execution of the transfer deed, the appellant had treated respondent No.1 badly, in terms of Section 23 of the 2007 Act, the transfer deed was liable to be cancelled.

3. On being put to notice, the appellant filed a reply and denied the allegations made against him. The case set up by the appellant was that the application had been got filed at the behest of his younger brother Rakesh Kumar as there were civil disputes pending between both of them; it was respondent No.1 and not the appellant who was aggressive in nature as respondent No.1 had thrown out his wife (the appellant's mother) from her matrimonial home forcing her to reside with the appellant; respondent No.1, who was a Former Senior Deputy Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Patiala, had sufficient sources to maintain himself as he was getting pension as also receiving rent from a shop at Patiala and that in case respondent No.1 was in need of a shop, he could always seek eviction of the appellant's brother Rakesh Kumar who with the appellant, had also been gifted a shop by respondent No.1.

4. The Tribunal dismissed respondent No.1's application against which respondent No.1 filed an appeal which was accepted by the Magistrate. Through filing of a writ petition the appellant challenged before this Court the order passed by the Magistrate. On the dismissal of his petition by the learned Single Judge, the appellant is before us through the instant intra Court appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.1 is a man of means being a former Senior Deputy Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Patiala; he is in receipt of pension and rent from a shop let out by him; the entire proceedings in question have been got lodged at the behest of the appellant's brother Rakesh Kumar with whom the appellant has pending civil disputes and that it is not the appellant but respondent No.1 who is aggressive by nature as at an earlier point of time, it is he who had thrown out his wife (appellant's mother) from her matrimonial home forcing her to come and live with the appellant.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-caveator. With their able assistance we have also gone through the record.

7. Section 23(1) of the 2007 Act reads as under:-

"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 Tr