JUDGMENT Sukhvinder Kaur, J. This Intra Court Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.07.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 15170 of 2023 filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts are that respondents no.3 and 4 are both senior citizens and had filed an application/complaint under section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'the 2007 Act') before the Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar alleging therein that they are old parents of the appellant; they have two sons and two daughters, one of whom is a widow and lives with respondents no.3 and 4; both their sons Ravi Kumar and Mukesh Kumar are married; Ravi Kumar had married twice; after his first wife passed away he conducted love marriage with his second wife, namely, Manisha; vide sale deed no.9524 dated 23.03.2007 respondent No.3 had purchased a 100 square yards plot at Shankar Garden Line Paar, Bahadurgarh, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar and constructed his house thereupon with his hard earned money; the electricity and water connections qua this property were also in his name; though respondents no.3 and 4 had facilitated the marriage of their son i.e. appellant and Manisha (proforma respondent no.5) but after sometime appellant and respondent no.5 started quarrelling with respondents no.3 and 4 and started to pressurize them to execute sale deed of the house in question in favour of the appellant and respondent no.5; to harass respondents no.3 and 4, appellant and respondent no.5 filed a complaint dated 03.08.2019 with the police; on 18.03.2022, the appellant and respondent no.5 again quarrelled with respondents no.3 and 4 and also thrashed respondent no.4 and the entire incident was recorded in a CCTV camera; the appellant was in unauthorized possession of the house in question and despite their several requests neither the appellant was vacating the house nor was providing basic amenities to respondents no.3 and 4 and this was despite the fact that the appellant was serving as a Guest Teacher (Maths) and was thus earning a handsome salary. 3. Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Maintenance Tribunal, Bahadurgarh vide order dated 14.09.2022 ordered eviction of the appellant and respondent no.5 and also directed the appellant and his brother-Mukesh Kumar to pay Rs. 10,000/- each per month to respondents no.3 and 4 towards their maintenance. 4. 3. Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Maintenance Tribunal, Bahadurgarh vide order dated 14.09.2022 ordered eviction of the appellant and respondent no.5 and also directed the appellant and his brother-Mukesh Kumar to pay Rs. 10,000/- each per month to respondents no.3 and 4 towards their maintenance. 4. An appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate, Jhajjar which was dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2023. Thereafter, CWP-15170-2023 was filed before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.07.2023. Hence, the present Intra Court appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that respondent no.3 had retired from the Indian Railways and was getting pension at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month, besides having monthly rental income. It was further contended that respondents No.3 and 4 as well as his brother Mukesh Kumar were not happy with the marriage of the appellant and they, in connivance with each other, moved an application under Section 22 of the 2007 Act to evict him as well as his wife from their matrimonial home. Further, the property in question was not purchased by respondent No.3, rather it was ancestral property of the parties and the grandmother of the appellant had transferred the said property in favour of respondent No.3 vide sale deed No.9524, that too, without any sale consideration. It was further submitted that besides the property in which the appellant was residing, respondent No.3 had purchased a plot measuring 200 sq. yards in the name of his brother and widowed sister in equal shares. Thereafter, the properties, including the ancestral property, had been divided by respondents No.3 and 4 in equal shares between all their children. 6. It is further urged that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that respondents no.3 and 4 have intentionally concealed material facts before the Tribunal. Respondents no.3 and 4 are not living in the same house rather they are living separately in the adjoining house which is a double storeyed house, some portion of which has been rented out by respondent no.3 for which he is receiving Rs. 20,000/- as rental income. The appellant is a contractual teacher who is just earning Rs. Respondents no.3 and 4 are not living in the same house rather they are living separately in the adjoining house which is a double storeyed house, some portion of which has been rented out by respondent no.3 for which he is receiving Rs. 20,000/- as rental income. The appellant is a contractual teacher who is just earning Rs. 5000/- per month and he is also to maintain his wife and minor daughter with this meagre amount and has contended that in the light of the above submissions, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with their able assistance. 8. A perusal of the record reveals that respondents no.3 and 4 are aged parents of the appellant and are senior citizens. It is also not disputed that the sale deed no.9524 dated 23.03.2007 of the disputed property is in the name of respondent no.3. The learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that in para no.2 of the application moved by respondents no.3 and 4 before the Tribunal/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bahadurgrah it was specifically stated that respondent no.3 had purchased the property in dispute vide sale deed dated 23.03.2007 and that the water and electricity connections were also in the name of respondent no.3. Copies of the sale deed and water and electricity bills had also been attached with the said application. In the reply filed by the appellant to the said application, no such plea in respect to the property being ancestral in nature was raised. Rather, it was admitted that the sale deed was in the name of respondent no.3. No such material had or has also been placed on the record from which it can be made out that the property in dispute was ancestral in nature. So when the sale deed, which is a document of title, is in the name of respondent no.3 and there is nothing on record to prove that the disputed property was ancestral in nature then the learned Single Judge has rightly held that respondent no.3 is the owner of the property in dispute and that he had every right to file an application under the 2007 Act. 9. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that respondents no.3 and 4 are residing in H.No.124 whereas the appellant is residing in H.No.125 has also been considered by the learned Single Judge. It has rightly been observed that in para no. 13 of the application filed by respondents no.3 and 4 filed before the Tribunal, it had specifically been stated that they are residents of H.No.125. In reply to the said para, filed by the appellant, it has just been stated that the same is a matter of fact. So the learned Single Judge has rightly held that this issue has not been disputed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has further rightly held that the pleas raised by the appellant before him were contrary to the pleadings before the authorities and were unsubstantiated and therefore, have been rightly rejected. 10. The learned Single Judge has also rightly referred to law laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt. S.Vanitha v. They Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District & others, (2021) 15 SCC 730 , wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that the Tribunal constituted under the 2007 Act may have the authority to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of senior citizens or parents and that, the eviction, in other words, would be an incidence of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case supra also took into consideration the objects of the 2007 Act which included a need to give more attention to the care and protection of persons in their twilight years. 11. Respondents No.3 and 4 are old parents of the appellant and are senior citizens. Respondent No.3 is owner of the disputed property by virtue of sale deed dated 23.03.2007. The authorities rightly evicted the appellant from the house in dispute by observing that the appellant has no right in the property owned by respondent No.3 and that he was in unauthorized occupation of the same. The said findings of the authorities below are found to have been rightly affirmed by the learned Single Judge. 12. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, warranting any interference by us. 13. The said findings of the authorities below are found to have been rightly affirmed by the learned Single Judge. 12. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, warranting any interference by us. 13. Accordingly, finding no merit in the instant intra Court appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.