The court established that a transfer deed can be cancelled under Section 23 of the 2007 Act if the transferee fails to provide basic amenities to the transferor, fulfilling the statutory conditions.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This is a civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.03.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent no.3 vide which the appeal preferred by respondent no.1 (senior citizen) against the order dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent no.2 has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent no.1, who is a senior citizen, had filed an application dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure P-2) before respondent no.2 for cancellation of the transfer deed dated 11.05.2016 executed by respondent no.1 in favour of the petitioner (son). It was stated in the said application that respondent no.1 had got registered half share of 63 square yards owned by him, measuring 31 ½ yard in the name of his son vide the said registered sale deed but the said petitioner was out of control and used to harass respondent no.1 and did not help respondent no.1 in any manner. A perusal of the transfer deed dated 11.05.2016 (Annexure P-1) would show that it was specifically mentioned in the said transfer deed that the petitioner is duty bound to take care of and provide all the basic amenities to respondent no.1 and in case the petitioner fails to do so, then the deed would be liable to be treated as cancelled as per the provisions of section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2007 Act"). Reply dated 24.09.2018 (Annexure P-3) to the said application was filed by the petitioner and in paragraph 2 of the said reply, it has been stated by the petitioner that his parents were residing with the younger brother Rakesh Kumar and the petitioner was not required to maintain them and that the petitioner had purchased his personal house at Tej Bagh Colony. In paragraph 4 of the reply, it has been stated that respondent no.1 had willed away all his properties vide registered Will dated 18.06.2010 and had given shop in dispute i.e. shop no.2439/2 situated at Chowk Kasera Patiala in favour of the petitioner and the other shop no.2438/2 in favour of Rakesh Kumar and third shop i.e., 2427/2 situated at Old Anaj Mandi, Sanauri Gate, Patiala in the name of Sushma Singla, widow of the third son of respondent no.1. The Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala vide order dated 26.10.2018 rejected the said application. An appeal was filed by respondent no.1 against the said order and the appellate authority vide order dated 27.03.2019 allowed the said appeal after specifically observing that the behaviour of the petitioner towards his father who had brought him up, married him and took care of him was not as is expected in a civilized society and that the petitioner was not taking care of respondent no.1(father).

3. Aggrieved against the order dated 27.03.2019, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following three grounds:-

i) The first ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conduct of respondent no.1 himself is not good. It is submitted that respondent no.1 had thrown out his wife from the house in question and his wife (mother of the petitioner) was forced to reside with the petitioner until her death and for the said purpose, reference has been made to paragraph 2 of the reply dated 24.09.2018. Further reference has also been made to the death certificate dated 16.10.2017 (Annexure P-7) to show that the address of the mother of the petitioner mentioned in the death certificate was that of the petitioner's house.

ii) The second ground of challenge which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no.1 has sufficient sources to maintain himself and thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on the said ground also. It has been pointed out that respondent no.1 gets his pension