JUDGMENT : B. VEERAPPA, J. 1. The petitioner alleging that she is the daughter-in-law of respondent No.3, has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.MAG/4/Misc/CR.83/2015-16, vide Annexure - A, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises in occupation of the petitioner, with necessary police help. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her father-in-law has executed sale deed in favour of her husband measuring 1200 sq.feet, constructed a small house, wherein the petitioner is stayed with her daughter. Father-in-law of the petitioner has executed the very same property in favour of mother-in-law of the petitioner on 19.07.2010 through a registered Gift deed. The mother-in-law of the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction, against the petitioner in O.S. No.312/2010. The said matter is still pending for consideration. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed the petition before respondent No.2 for evicting the petitioner from the said property. The petitioner has filed objections in the year 2015. Respondent No.2, considering the objections of the petitioner, has passed the impugned order dated 29.02.2016 and allowed the application filed by both father-in-law and mother-in-law i.e., respondent Nos.3 and 4. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has filed the appeal before respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 4. Sri. Sandesh C.R., learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner is erroneous and contrary to the same. He further contended that absolutely there is no provision under the Act and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have to confine the proceedings only to seek maintenance against their children. When once, there is no provision under law, the relief sought by respondent Nos.3 and 4, is not maintainable and the Assistant Commissioner ought not allowed the application. Therefore, he sought to quash the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. 5. He further contended that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have already filed suit in O.S. No.312/2010 before the Jurisdictional Court for permanent injunction against the petitioner contending that they are in possession of the property. Therefore, he sought to quash the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. 5. He further contended that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have already filed suit in O.S. No.312/2010 before the Jurisdictional Court for permanent injunction against the petitioner contending that they are in possession of the property. The said mater is still pending adjudication before the competent civil Court. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner ought not to have proceed in the present proceedings. He would further contended that respondent No.5 is the husband of the present petitioner and has deserted the petitioner and her daughter without there being any reason. Apart from that respondent No.5 has initiated proceedings for dissolution of marriage and the order of dissolution now came to be set aside and the marriage is still subsisting. It is only at the instance of respondent Nos.3 and 4, respondent No.5 has deserted and totally neglected the petitioner and her daughter, who has no source of income, so as to take care of herself and her daughter. Therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner are erroneous and cannot be sustained. 6. He further contended that if the proceedings/order passed by respondent No.2 is allowed to continue and the petitioner will be thrown out of the property in question, she will be on streets with her daughter. The scope of the provisions of the Act is very clear and the stand taken by respondent Nos.3 and 4 is not applicable to the present case. Therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be quashed and sought to allow the present writ petition. 7. Per contra, Sri.T.R. Subbanna, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 has justified the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and contended that the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner by the petitioner was not at all maintainable. The Assistant Commissioner considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that the property in question belongs to respondent No.3 i.e., Mother-in-law of the present petitioner and unless the gift deed executed in her favour is set aside by the competent Authority, respondent No.3 being mother-in-law, is having right to continue in the property in question. 8. The Assistant Commissioner considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that the property in question belongs to respondent No.3 i.e., Mother-in-law of the present petitioner and unless the gift deed executed in her favour is set aside by the competent Authority, respondent No.3 being mother-in-law, is having right to continue in the property in question. 8. He further contended that the Assistant Commissioner, considering the application has rightly directed respondent No.1 therein - her son to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. and directed respondent No.2 the present petitioner herein to vacate the premises of the house property bearing site No.6, Assessment No.5, Gangondanahalli Panchayath Khatha No.55, Situated at Gangondanahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, with the police protection. The same is in accordance with law. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that respondent Nos.3 and 4 i.e., mother-in-law and father-in-law of the present petitioner are aged about 66 years and 76 years, have filed the petition before the Assistant Commissioner for maintenance against their son and eviction against their daughter-in-law mainly contending that the property in question belongs to respondent No.3 in view of the registered gift deed dated 19.07.2010 and further contended that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have constructed a residential house on the site for dwelling purpose. Accordingly, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were residing together in the said house till 2010. As there was dispute between the petitioner and her husband, her husband left the house. Thereafter, the petitioner has managed to throw out respondent Nos.3 and 4 to street mercilessly from their house on 12.08.2010. Since then, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were residing in their native place as shown in the cause title and the petitioner was residing in the house of respondent Nos.3 and 4. The marriage between the petitioner and her husband was dissolved on 05.12.2013 in M.C. No.22/2009 etc. 10. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. Since then, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were residing in their native place as shown in the cause title and the petitioner was residing in the house of respondent Nos.3 and 4. The marriage between the petitioner and her husband was dissolved on 05.12.2013 in M.C. No.22/2009 etc. 10. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner considering the application and objections, has recorded a finding that there is no dispute with regard to the property in question and originally it belongs to 2nd applicant - Puttarudraiah therein, who was working as a teacher and had constructed a house in the property and he has gifted the same to the first applicant therein i.e., present respondent No.3 - Siddagangamma herein. There is no dispute that the marriage was dissolved in M.C. No.22/2009 between the petitioner and her husband. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that respondent No.1 therein is residing separately and the second respondent therein i.e., the present petitioner is living in the house of the applicants therein/respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein and respondent No.1 therein is not having any right over the said property. Respondent No.2 therein being the divorced wife of respondent No.1 therein is having grievance against respondent No.1 therein for her maintenance and not against the applicants therein. 11. Admittedly, the Assistant Commissioner further recorded that applicants therein have not gifted or transferred the said property either in favour of respondent No.1 or in favour of respondent No.2 therein. Hence, the said house property is still the absolute property of the applicants therein. Even respondent No.2 therein has not stated that the said house property has been attached by the Hon'ble Civil Court in lieu of her maintenance claimed against respondent No.1 therein. The respondent No.2 has to seek maintenance and shelter from respondent No.1 and not from the applicants therein as the house is their self acquired property and they are the Senior Citizens aged about 66 and 76 years. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has directed respondent No.5 herein - son to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. and respondent No.2 therein is directed to vacate the premises of house property, which is in question. 12. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has directed respondent No.5 herein - son to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. and respondent No.2 therein is directed to vacate the premises of house property, which is in question. 12. The material on record clearly depicts that aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, both the present petitioner and respondent No.5 filed two appeals before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal in view of provisions of Section 16(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is reads as under: "Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal" 13. In view of admitted facts that the property in question belongs to respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the senior citizens and husband and wife, have a right to reside in their own house by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 19.07.2010. 14. The dispute between the present petitioner and respondent No.5 with regard to maintenance, it is open for the present petitioner to take appropriate action against her husband/respondent No.5 for maintenance in accordance with law. 15. The impugned order passed by Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is in accordance with law. The petitioner has not made out any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 16. The petitioner is directed to vacate the premises of the house property and hand over the vacant possession of the same to respondent No.3- mother-in-law within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.