IMPORTANT POINT
A senior citizen who had transferred his right, title or interest to any other person by gift or otherwise, same would become void in the event of transferee refusing to provide amenities and physical needs.

M.M.S. Bedi, J.— The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. against an order dated June 19, 2013 (annexure P26) passed by the Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Panchkula, exercising powers under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, for short ‘the Maintenance Act’. Petitioners have also sought quashing of the execution proceedings initiated by respondent No.5 and the order dated August 23, 2013 passed in the execution proceedings annexure P3.

2. Brief facts relevant for the just decision of the present petition are that in the application filed by respondent No.5 under Section 23 of the Maintenance Act he stated that he is a senior citizen aged 75 years and owner of 50% share of House No.174, Sector 6, Panchkula, and owner of 50% share of the said house is Sanjay Tomar, who is the eldest son of respondent No.5. His wife expired on May 26, 2010. The petitioners had been living with respondent No.5 on the first floor of the abovesaid house since their marriage in 2009. Respondent No.5 averred that the property in his name is self-acquired property which was transferred/temporarily purchased in their name on the assurance and condition that they will look after respondent No.5 and shall provide him basic amenities. Respondent No.5 had prayed that the petitioners may be ejected from the properties (i) 25% share of Pankaj Tomar (petitioner No.2) in House No.5-B/4 IInd Floor, Purvi Marg, opposite Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi (ii) 90% share of Promil Tomar (petitioner No.1) in four shops bearing No.G1 to G4, Local Shopping Complex, Phase 1, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi; and (iii) House No.174, Sector 6, Panchkula, first floor. The petitioners on receipt of notice filed reply to the effect that the application under Section 23 of the Maintenance Act was not maintainable. No property had ever been transferred by respondent No.5 to the petitioners. It was transferred to them through Will of deceased mother of petitioner No.2 Smt. Rattan Kaur. Material facts have been intentionally concealed. As per Will No.803/3 dated October 20, 2009 executed by Smt. Rattan Kaur wife of Sh. Kartar Singh Tomar in favour of petitioners, 50% share of House No.174, Sector 6, Panchkula, would go to her son Pankaj Tomar, petitioner No.2 and her daughter Jessica Singh as per letter No.4012 dated March 23, 2012 issued by HUDA Department. Petitioner No.2 is owner of House No.174, Sector 6, Panchkula, Respondent No.5 had wrongly by way of power of attorney in gift No.3 715 dated March 20, 2012 got his name-changed as owner of House No.174, Sector 6, Panchkula. Petitioner No.1 who married petitioner No.2 has been made a party because she gave birth to a female child and she is a witness and protester of respondent No.5 in physical abuse of his wife Rattan Kaur. The Tribunal gave personal hearing to respondent No.5 and recorded that he was owner of House No.174, Sector 6, Panchkula, His son petitioner No.2 and his wife petitioner No.1 are not vacating the first floor of said house. They were not letting him keep a maid servant and do not provide any basic needs to him. He stated that his daughters, namely, Priyanka Khosla and Monika Chaudhary are also intending to grab his property and do not respect him. He prayed that petitioner No.2 be ejected from the properties aforementioned. Petitioner No.2 has also made a statement before the Tribunal that he is owner to the extent of 50% share of House No. 174, Sector 6, Panchkula. He is living independently on the first floor and has never interfered in the life of his father respondent No.5. In fact, his father has fraudulently changed name in the gift deed No.3715 by misusing his general power of attorney. Petitioner No.2 claimed that he had filed a civil suit for declaration to get the said gift deed No.3715, null and void against respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 does not wan