ORDER : Vikram Nath, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by original respondent - Chandrikaben Vsaantray Sanghavi aged about 80 years, feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.08.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2367 of 2018. 2. The background of fact which has given rise to this Letters Patent Appeal is that the original petitioners i.e. respondents nos. 1 and 2 herein had filed a petition before this Court for challenging the order dated 12.01.2018 passed by the learned Collector, District Magistrate in Appeal No. 4 of 2016, whereby by confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector, and Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the proceedings of Maintenance of Senior Citizen Act, Case No. 1 of 2015, whereby the petitioners have been ordered to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the property in question which is Bungalow No. 1, Surat House, Vaghwadi Road, Bhavnagar. 2.1. The appellant - Chandrikaben Sanghvi has made an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on the premise that out of the wedlock, two sons, four daughters have been born, their marriages have been undertaken and that she was residing in the property in question, opponents nos. 1 and 2 were not only not taking care of her, but on the contrary, quarreling with her, which has dragged the appellant to move the application. After hearing at length, and after perusal of the entire circumstances, by way of order dated 12.02.2016, the opponents were directed to hand over the possession to the appellant i.e. Bunglaow No. 1, Surat House, Vaghwadi Road, since it was specifically found that the said property has been purchased by the appellant and the elder brother-in-law. 2.2. This order by virtue of which the property was directed to be handed over was carried further by the opponents before District Collector, and Magistrate Bhavnagar which was registered as Appeal No. 3 of 2016 and simultaneously opponents nos. 1 and 2 have also preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 4 of 2016. 2.2. This order by virtue of which the property was directed to be handed over was carried further by the opponents before District Collector, and Magistrate Bhavnagar which was registered as Appeal No. 3 of 2016 and simultaneously opponents nos. 1 and 2 have also preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 4 of 2016. Both these appeals came up for consideration before the District Magistrate and Collector, Bhavnagar who bay way of order dated 12.01.2018 confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 12.02.2016 and forthwith the opponents have been directed to hand over the possession of Bungalow No. 1, Surat House, Vaghwdi Road, Bhavnagar, to the present appellant. Necessary instructions have also been passed on to the Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar and Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, Bhavnagar City, as well. 2.3. These two orders have been challenged by opponents nos. 1 and 2 herein by way of filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 21.08.2018 wherein, the learned Single Judge prima facie was of the view that application is not tenable and the petition came to be admitted and granted interim stay, leaving it open for the present appellant to file appropriate proceedings for seeking compensation as may be legally permissible. 2.4. This order passed by the learned Single Judge has come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court on 05.08.2019 wherein, after perusal of the merit of the appeal, notice is issued, made it returnable on 28.08.2019. Subsequently, the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 25.09.2019 wherein after hearing both the learned advocates appearing for the respective sides, with a view to find out amicable solution since fight is between the mother and son, the Court called upon the parties to remain present and has requested Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Government Pleader to make an endeavor to sort out the issue between the parties and the matter was placed on 27.09.2019. 2.5. Thereafter, on 27.09.2019, while the Court took up the matter in which the appellant as well as respondents no. 1 and 2 remain present duly identified by their learned counsel and again the learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, has stated that she did make an endeavor to sort out the issue, but adamant stand was taken by the respondents. 1 and 2 remain present duly identified by their learned counsel and again the learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, has stated that she did make an endeavor to sort out the issue, but adamant stand was taken by the respondents. As a result of which, we heard the matter. During the course of hearing, the learned advocate representing respondents nos. 1 and 2 under the instructions who remain present in the Court has stated that if reasonable time is allowed to respondents nos. 1 and 2, they would vacate the house in question and shift to the other flat which had been purchased in the name of respondent no. 1 by his father i.e. husband of the appellant. Considering this submission made by learned advocates, we granted time of 15 days time to respondents nos. 1 and 2 to vacate the house in question and hand over the possession to the appellant and resultantly, the matter was requested to be placed on 30.09.2019 for giving affidavit to that effect. Hence, since this has taken place in the presence of respondents nos. 1 and 2 and under their instructions, the matter was put up on 30.09.2019, wherein respondents nos. 1 and 2 were permitted to file an undertaking and personal appearance was found to be no longer necessary. The relevant extract of the aforesaid circumstances is visible from the order dated 27.09.2019, hence, we deem it proper to reproduced herein after:- "Shri Apurva Jani, learned counsel appearing for respondents nos. 1 and 2, upon instructions has stated that if reasonable time is allowed to respondents nos. 1 and 2, they would vacate the house in question and shift to the other flat which has been purchased in the name of respondent no. 1 by his father i.e. husband of the appellant. Although one month's time was prayed for, but in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the age of the appellant, we allow 15 days time to respondents nos. 1 and 2 to vacate the house in question and hand over the peaceful possession to the appellant. Let an affidavit duly sworn be filed by respondents nos. 1 and 2 by Monday i.e. 30.09.2019 stating such facts and giving an undertaking that the house will be vacated within a period of 15 days from today. Put up this matter on 30.09.2019. Let an affidavit duly sworn be filed by respondents nos. 1 and 2 by Monday i.e. 30.09.2019 stating such facts and giving an undertaking that the house will be vacated within a period of 15 days from today. Put up this matter on 30.09.2019. To be taken at 11:00 a.m. The affidavit of respondents nos. 1 and 2 may be filed directly in the Court. The personal appearance of the appellant and respondents nos. 1 and 2 would no longer be necessary. If necessary, we may direct otherwise." 2.6. Later on, the matter came up for consideration again on 30.09.2019 on which further two days time was sought for filing an affidavit of the son and the affidavit of daughter-in-law is already prepared. Resultantly, we deemed it proper to grant time to submit their affidavits on or before the next date i.e. 03.10.2019 and at that time also, Shri Jani learned counsel has stated that time of 15 days would remain as it is and incorporated in the order dated 27.09.2019. 2.7. Thereafter, subsequent to that on 03.10.2019, the matter came up for consideration on which two affidavits have been filed duly sworn by respondents nos. 1 and 2 through their respective counsel and it had been specifically stated in their affidavits that they would vacate the premises in question within a period of 15 days beginning from 27.09.2019. On the next date i.e. 17.10.2019 though it was clarified tenure of 15 days, still, learned counsel Shri Jani for respondents nos. 1 and 2 has prayed for further extension upto 24.10.2019 since examination of children of respondents nos. 1 and 2 were currently going on. Since examination were to over on 22.10.2019, the Court deemed it proper to place the matter on 25.10.2019 and permit respondents nos. 1 and 2 to file appropriate affidavit about handing over the possession, failing which, appropriate orders would be passed as indicated. The Court had also noted in the said order that under the normal circumstance, the Court would have directed the Superintendent of Police to get the premises vacated, it is for the examination of children, the Court showed sympathy despite the aforesaid circumstances and the matter was placed on 25.10.2019. Order dated 17.10.2019, since relevant to the issue, the same is reproduced herein after:- "Shri Apurva Jani, learned counsel for respondent Nos. Order dated 17.10.2019, since relevant to the issue, the same is reproduced herein after:- "Shri Apurva Jani, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has prayed for extension of time to vacate the premises in question upto 24.10.2019, as according to him, the examinations of the children of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are currently going on. Although this fact could have been brought to our notice on the previous date when we passed the order dated 03.10.2019, wherein we had granted time of fifteen days to vacate the premises and in normal circumstances, we would have directed the Superintendent of Police to get the premises vacated, but considering the nature of request made and the reason given for seeking extension, we grant time till 24.10.2019. According to Shri Jani, the examinations are to be over on 22.10.2019. Let this matter be placed on 25.10.2019, to be taken up at 11.00 a.m. By the next date, an appropriate affidavit may be filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of having handed over the possession to the appellant, failing which appropriate orders would be passed. 3. Today, surprisingly, when the matter is taken up for hearing, first of all, learned advocate in the first round did not remain present and later on, when the matter is called out again, it was reported to pass appropriate orders as having no further instructions and as against this, learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah appearing for the appellant has clearly submitted before us that the premises have not been vacated, on the contrary, conveyed that it may not be vacated. Resultantly, we find a clear adamant approach of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which has led us to take a strict view in the matter. 4. Here is a case in which the learned Government Pleader has made an endeavor to resolve the issues between the parties and further that, on 27.9.2019, a categorical stand is taken that they will vacate the premises within a period of 15 days and also filed the affidavit to that extent. Even that time has been granted not only to file the affidavits but, even after the clarification as to from which day, 15 days to be counted, we took sympathetic approach on account of examination of children. Even that time has been granted not only to file the affidavits but, even after the clarification as to from which day, 15 days to be counted, we took sympathetic approach on account of examination of children. But then, today, we find that this has found to be a case of undue sympathy which the Court would not like to extend any further now. The Court has in clear terms passed the orders which are reproduced hereinbefore and in an order dated 17.10.2019, we have categorically stated that if the premises will not be vacated, appropriate orders will be passed. As a result of which, the Court is compelled to now direct the Superintendent of Police to get the premises vacated. In clear terms, the affidavits have also been placed on record filed by one Ashwin Vasantrai Sanghvi and on oath, it has been mentioned that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would vacate the premises within a period of 15 days from the date of such affidavit and the relevant assertion of Para. 8 is reproduced hereinafter: "8. I further say and submit that the present Respondent no. 1 and 2 would vacate the premises in question within a period of 15 days from today subject to what is stated herein above." 5. We find that the solemn assurances on multiple occasions having been given to the Court and now to refrain from such assurances, we hereby deprecate the act of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As a consequent of it, the Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar is directed to take appropriate steps for vacating respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the premises in question with the assistance of adequate police force and handover peaceful and vacant possession to present appellant within a period of 15 days from today and compliance report be submitted, to be kept on record of the present case. 6. We would have taken a strict action against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for defiance of the assurance given to the Court in respect of handing over of possession but, since the issue is between the family, we refrain from taking any steps in this regard. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. The Letters Patent Appeal accordingly is allowed with aforesaid directions. 1 and 2 for defiance of the assurance given to the Court in respect of handing over of possession but, since the issue is between the family, we refrain from taking any steps in this regard. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. The Letters Patent Appeal accordingly is allowed with aforesaid directions. Since the central issue is related to handing over of possession, and the same is now disposed of with direction, we also dispose of the Special Civil Application. Consequently, Civil Application No. 1 of 2019 also stand disposed of accordingly.