The transfer of property is void if conditions for providing future basic amenities to the transferor are unmet.

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of an order passed by the Presiding Officer, Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act of 2007’), and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barasat (Sadar), North 24-Parganas. By the said order, the transfer of property through a deed of gift executed by the petitioner, Smt. Niva Bosu, in favour of her son to the extent of her share was declared void. The order further directed the petitioner and her family members to vacate the portion of the property corresponding to her share, as occupied by them, within the time specified therein.

2. Mr. Roy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, invites my attention to the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 and contends that the existence of a condition requiring the transferee to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor is a sine qua non for the application of the said provision. He submits that the recital of the deed does not contain any such condition. Therefore, in the present case, the Presiding Officer misdirected himself in applying sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 and in directing the petitioner herein to vacate the private respondent’s share of the property in question. In support his contention he placed his reliance on two decisions reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684 (Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi & Anr.) and (2018) 1 CHN Cal. 481 (Debasish Mukherjee Vs. Sanjib Mukherjee & Ors.)

3. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent, vehemently opposes the petitioner’s contention. He draws my attention to a specific portion of the recital of the deed and submits that it recorded that ‘the transferee has been maintaining the transferor’. He contends that this statement gives rise to a legitimate expectation that the transferee would continue to maintain the transferor.

4. He submits that, in light of the above, sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 is applicable in the present case. Furthermore, he contends that sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 is also attracted, considering that if the mother’s share of the property had been let out, it would have generated income. Accordingly, the mother’s estate could have provided financial support to the transferor.

5. He draws my attention to a statement made by the petitioner in his written statement filed in a proceeding initiated against him under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, wherein the petitioner undertook to take all necessary steps to look after and maintain his mother. In support of his submission, Mr. Chatterjee places reliance on the decisions in Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors., reported in (2025) 2 SCC 787, and S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District &

Ors., reported in (2021) 15 SCC 730.

6. Mr. Kapas, learned Advocate appearing for the State, submits that the incident was investigated by the jurisdictional police and, upon enquiry, it was revealed that the private respondent had been deprived by the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the police authorities issued a notice directing the petitioner to vacate the private respondent’s share of the property.

7. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and peruse the materials on record.

8. It is indeed unfortunate that a mother and son have been embroiled in such litigation for a considerable length of time. The mother was compelled to approach the Sub- Divisional Officer with the grievance th