ORDER : K. Lakshman, J. The present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to quash the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 in Case No. A2151/2024. 2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Somu Srinivas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Sunil B. Ganu, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. G. Rama Manoja, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri V.Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri C.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 3. The present case deals with an unfortunate dispute between a son and his mother. The subject matter of the dispute is the dwelling house bearing Plot No. 1088, H. No. 8-2-293/82/A/1088, Road No. 55, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033 [hereinafter ‘subject house’]. 4. The Petitioner is the third son of late Purushotham Das Agarwal and Susheela Agarwal (Respondent No. 3 herein). Respondent No. 4 herein is the elder brother of the Petitioner. 5. Respondent No. 3 herein, who is the mother of the Petitioner had filed an application dated 29.01.2024 under the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 [hereinafter ‘Rules, 2011’] before the District Collector (Respondent No. 2 herein) seeking to evict the Petitioner from the subject house. 6. Respondent No. 3’s application before Respondent No. 2 to evict the Petitioner:- i. She contended that the subject house was purchased by herself and out of her own funds vide registered sale deed dated 05.11.1988. She also stated that all her three (03) sons, including the Petitioner stayed in the subject house. However, the Petitioner herein started pressurizing her to transfer the entire subject house in his name. ii. Caving into the Petitioner son’s pressure, Respondent No. 3 executed a registered Will Deed dated 16.08.2022 dividing the subject house in three equal parts in favour of all her three sons. iii. Respondent No. 3, in her application before Respondent No. 2, stated that despite receiving 1/3rd share in the subject house, the Petitioner continued to harass her. Due to the continuous harassment, Respondent No. 3 developed severe health issues and was hospitalized multiple times. Miffed by the Petitioner’s attitude and harassment, Respondent No. 3 cancelled the Will Deed vide a Cancellation Deed dated 09.12.2022. iv. Due to the continuous harassment, Respondent No. 3 developed severe health issues and was hospitalized multiple times. Miffed by the Petitioner’s attitude and harassment, Respondent No. 3 cancelled the Will Deed vide a Cancellation Deed dated 09.12.2022. iv. Thereafter, on the same day of cancellation of the Will Deed, the Respondent No.3 executed a Gift Deed dated 09.12.2022 in favour of her eldest son – Respondent No. 4 herein. Enraged by the gift in his elder brother’s favour, the Petitioner continued to harass his mother – Respondent No. 3. v. Unable to bear his harassment, Respondent No. 3 filed a criminal complaint on 16.12.2022. Thereafter, another criminal complaint dated 23.12.2022 was filed wherein Respondent No. 3 alleged that the Petitioner threatened to kill her and other members of the family. FIR No. 767/2022 was registered under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. vi. Refusing to vacate the subject house, the Petitioner filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 5420/2022 seeking permanent injunction against Respondent No. 3. However, the said suit was withdrawn. Later, the Petitioner filed another suit bearing O.S. No. 124/2023 seeking partition of the subject house. vii. Averring the above facts, alleging that she is being constantly harassed and threatened, Respondent No. 3 filed an application before Respondent No. 2 seeking his eviction under the Rules, 2011. 7. Proceedings before the Respondent No. 2/District Collector:- i. After receiving Respondent No. 3’s application, Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice dated 10.02.2024 calling upon the Petitioner to attend the hearing on 16.02.2024. It is relevant to note that no reasons or facts were stated, basis which the show cause notice was issued. ii. The Petitioner replied to above show cause notice on 20.02.2024 stating that he received the said notice only on 19.02.2024. Further, in his reply, the Petitioner sought 01 weeks’ time to file a written reply to the complaint/application filed by Respondent No. 3. iii. On 23.02.2024, the Petitioner filed his reply to Respondent No. 3’s application. He mainly contended that Respondent No. 3 did not have valid title over the subject house and that the subject house was purchased out of the joint family funds. He further contended that he was providing financial support to Respondent No. 3 till December 2022. Also, contended that a false FIR was registered against him and that suits were pending over the subject house. He further contended that he was providing financial support to Respondent No. 3 till December 2022. Also, contended that a false FIR was registered against him and that suits were pending over the subject house. He stated that he was willing to resolve the disputes with his mother – Respondent No. 3. iv. Vide the impugned order dated 07.03.2024, Respondent No. 2 noted that the sale deed dated 05.11.1988 mentions Respondent No. 3 as the owner of the subject house and the fact that she herself paid the entire sale consideration. It was held that the Petitioner did not place any evidence to dispute the recitals of the sale deed. Further, relying on the FIR, Respondent No. 2 found that the Petitioner was causing harassment to Respondent No. 3 and was also threatening her. Therefore, under Rule 20(2)(i) of the Rules, 2011, Respondent No. 2 directed the Petitioner to vacate the subject house within thirty (30) days from the date of the order. v. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.03.2024, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 8. Contentions of the Petitioner:- i. The Petitioner reiterated the grounds taken by him before Respondent No. 2. He contended that Respondent No. 3 is not the owner of the subject house. ii. The Petitioner also contended that the procedure laid down under the Rules was not followed. He contended that Rules, 2011 were amended vide G.O. Ms. No. 40 dated 30.12.2022 whereby procedure to be followed in an application seeking eviction by a senior citizen was laid down. In particular, the Petitioner contended that Rule 21(3) was not followed. Reliance was placed on Brajendra Singh Yambem vs. Union of India (2016) 9 SCC 20 iii. The Petitioner relying on Rule 21(3)(a)(i) contended that only a senior citizen who is the owner of the property can file an application seeking eviction. As Respondent No. 3 gifted the subject house to Respondent No. 4, she could not have filed an application for eviction. 9. Contentions of Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 i. It was contended that the procedure was followed. Subsequent developments in the form of additional facts were placed before this Court. As Respondent No. 3 gifted the subject house to Respondent No. 4, she could not have filed an application for eviction. 9. Contentions of Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 i. It was contended that the procedure was followed. Subsequent developments in the form of additional facts were placed before this Court. the charge sheet was filed against the Petitioner under Sections 506, 506 (II), 509 of the IPC and Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act;), for threatening to kill Respondent No. 3. Relying on the said chargesheet, it was contended that the Petitioner poses a threat to Respondent No. 3’s life and was rightly evicted. ii. It was also brought on record that the plaint in the suit for partition filed by the Petitioner was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 on the ground that the Petitioner has no cause of action to claim the subject house. Relying on the said order, it was contended that, in the absence of any right over the subject house, the Petitioner’s eviction was justified. iii. Relying on Sunny Paul vs. State NCT of Delhi 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7451, Pawan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3354, Maheshwari Devi vs. Government of NCT of Delhi 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1197 and Manju Tokas v. GNCT of Delhi through Divisional Commissioner 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3974, it was contended that the object of the Act, is to protect the interest of the senior citizens and to ensure that they are not harassed in the fag end of their life. 10. Findings of this Court:- i. It is pertinent to note that the object behind the Act, and the Rules made thereunder is to protect the senior citizens and their dignity to live in their own house from their own children. ii. In the present case, the procedure to file and decide an application seeking eviction by a senior citizen was added vide G.O. Ms. No. 40 dated 30.12.2022. Rule 21(3) was added and the same is extracted below: (3) Procedure for eviction from property of Senior Citizen/Parents: (a) (i) A senior citizen/parent, may make an application before the Collector & District Magistrate of his/her district, for eviction of his/her children/legal heir from his/her property on account of his/her nonmaintenance and/or ill-treatment. No. 40 dated 30.12.2022. Rule 21(3) was added and the same is extracted below: (3) Procedure for eviction from property of Senior Citizen/Parents: (a) (i) A senior citizen/parent, may make an application before the Collector & District Magistrate of his/her district, for eviction of his/her children/legal heir from his/her property on account of his/her nonmaintenance and/or ill-treatment. (ii) The Collector & District Magistrate shall immediately forward such application to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer for verification of the title of the property and facts of the case within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of such application. (iii) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer shall immediately submit his/her report to the Collector & District Magistrate for final orders within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the application. (iv) The Collector & District Magistrate during summary proceedings for the protection of senior citizens/parents shall consider all the relevant provisions of the Act. If the Collector & District Magistrate is of the opinion that any children/ legal heir of a senior citizen /parent is not maintaining the senior citizen/parent and/or ill-treating him/her/them and yet is occupying the property of the senior citizen/parent and that they should be evicted, the Collector & District Magistrate shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be issued against them/ him/ her. (v) The notice shall; - (i) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and (ii) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the property, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten (10) days from the date of issue thereof. (b) Eviction order from property of senior citizen/ parent: If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance to the notice and any evidence he/she may produce in support of the same and after giving him/her a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Collector & District Magistrate is satisfied that the eviction order needs to be made, the Collector & District Magistrate may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the property shall be vacated. (c) Enforcement of orders: - (i) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within thirty (30) days from the date of its issue, the Collector & District Magistrate or any other officer duly authorised by the Collector & District Magistrate in this behalf may evict that person from the premises in question and take possession; (ii) The Collector & District Magistrate shall have powers to enforce the eviction orders through police and the District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police, in case of cities, concerned shall be bound to carry out execution of the eviction order; (iii) The Collector & District Magistrate will further hand over the property in question to the concerned senior citizen /parent; and (iv) The Collector & District Magistrate shall forward monthly report of such cases to the Director, Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Senior Citizens and Transgender Persons by 7th of the following month. (d) Appeal: - (i) Any appeal against the order of the Collector & District Magistrate shall lie before the Commissioner/Director, Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Senior Citizens and Transgender Persons, Telangana, within thirty (30) days of the issue of the orders by the District Collector & Magistrate. (ii) Provisions regarding disposal of appeals before Appellate Tribunal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeals before the Commissioner/Director, Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Senior Citizens and Transgender Persons, Telangana. 11. As can be seen from the above Rule, a senior citizen can seek eviction of his/her children from his/her property on account of non-maintenance or ill-treatment. A senior citizen can file an application seeking eviction before the Collector & District Magistrate. 11. As can be seen from the above Rule, a senior citizen can seek eviction of his/her children from his/her property on account of non-maintenance or ill-treatment. A senior citizen can file an application seeking eviction before the Collector & District Magistrate. On receipt of such application, the Collector & District Magistrate, within 15 days from date of receipt of the application, shall forward the said application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer to verify the title of the property and the facts. 12. After receiving the application, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer shall conduct enquiry into the question of title and the fact of non-maintenance/ill-treatment. A report in this regard shall be submitted to Collector & District Magistrate within a period of 60 days from the date when the application was received by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer. 13. After perusing the report, the Collector & District Magistrate, if he/she is of the opinion that, the senior citizen was not being maintained or was being ill-treated, issue a show cause notice to the child/children who were staying in the senior citizen’s house. 14. The Rule also provides the form of the show cause notice. The show cause notice shall mention the grounds on which their eviction from the property is proposed. At least 10 days’ time is to be granted to the children to file a reply to the show cause notice. 15. After perusing the show cause notice, giving an opportunity to produce evidence and a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the Collector & District Magistrate can order eviction, if it is found that the senior citizen was ill-treated or was not maintained. 16. It is relevant to note that the proceedings for eviction under Rule 21(3) are summary in nature. This means that no detailed inquiry into the question of title or the allegations is necessary. Further, there is no requirement of strict examination of the evidence led by the parties. What is required is a fair opportunity to the parties to place their case on record. 17. Once an application is filed and the procedure under Rule 21(3) is followed, the Collector & District Magistrate’s duty is only to satisfy himself/herself that the senior citizen’s life or dignity is threatened by the children/legal heirs on account of non-maintenance or ill-treatment. A detailed inquiry akin to proceedings before a court of law is not necessary. 17. Once an application is filed and the procedure under Rule 21(3) is followed, the Collector & District Magistrate’s duty is only to satisfy himself/herself that the senior citizen’s life or dignity is threatened by the children/legal heirs on account of non-maintenance or ill-treatment. A detailed inquiry akin to proceedings before a court of law is not necessary. The scope of enquiry in eviction applications filed by senior citizens was explained by the Delhi High Court in Pawan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3354 as follows: 9. As rightly pointed out by the authorities below and by the learned Single Judge of this Court the exercise under the Senior Citizens Act is not to ascertain the title of the property in question. The enquiry is limited to see as to whether the senior citizen is being harassed by his children or not and if the senior citizen is harassed then for his/her welfare it is necessary that the children/legal heirs are asked to evict the property. The proceedings which are summary in nature are not to decide the title of the property. In view of the above, the principle contention of the Appellants herein that the Respondent No. 2 is not the owner of the property in question is insignificant. Any right which the Appellants want to establish has to be established under the Civil Code by filing a suit before the Civil Court. 18. When this Court states that the nature of enquiry is summary in nature, it should also be borne in mind that the children shall have to suffer an order of eviction. Therefore, it is important to balance the right of the senior citizen in light of the object of the Act, and the duty not arbitrarily evict children. 19. Such balance can be achieved by strictly following the procedure laid down. It must be noted that the procedure to be followed is summary in nature. Rule 21(3) permits the Collector/District Magistrate to pass an eviction order in a summary proceeding. Such order can be punitive and onerous, if the law on protection of senior citizens is misused. Therefore, the procedure needs strict compliance. 20. Compliance of the procedure also becomes necessary as rights of senior citizens can be used to evict children by by-passing the civil court proceedings. Such order can be punitive and onerous, if the law on protection of senior citizens is misused. Therefore, the procedure needs strict compliance. 20. Compliance of the procedure also becomes necessary as rights of senior citizens can be used to evict children by by-passing the civil court proceedings. For instance, where there is a serious title dispute between the children of the senior citizens or between the senior citizens and the children, the eviction proceedings under the Act and Rules thereunder can be used to obtain an order of eviction. 21. Therefore, while technicalities can be overlooked to give affect to the object of the Act and the Rules thereunder, it must also be ensured that there is substantial compliance of the procedure. Total non-compliance of procedure in a summary proceeding is impermissible and has the potential of substantially prejudicing one party. 22. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 did not seek a report of verification of title and facts from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer. Further, the show cause notice was defective as it did not state the reasons for the proposed eviction. Therefore, there was no compliance of Rule 21(3) by Respondent No. 2. On this ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 23. This Court would like to deal with the contention of maintainability of the complaint by Respondent No. 3. As stated above, the contention of the Petitioner was that only a senior citizen who is the owner of the property can file a complaint/application for eviction under Rule 21(3)(a)(i). As Respondent No. 3 executed a gift deed, she ceases to be the owner and therefore, cannot maintain a complaint. The said contention is technical, misconceived and liable to be rejected. 24. The effect of the Petitioner’s contention would be that, in all cases where the senior citizen gifts a property, he/she cannot claim the benefit of an order of eviction. The said interpretation is contrary to the object of the Act, and the Rules thereunder. There may be cases where after receiving the property, the children refuse to maintain their parents. In such cases, the senior citizens cannot be left without the remedy of eviction. 25. Even in cases where the senior citizen ceases to be the owner of the property and the property vests in his/her children, an application for eviction on account of non-maintenance and ill- treatment is maintainable. In such cases, the senior citizens cannot be left without the remedy of eviction. 25. Even in cases where the senior citizen ceases to be the owner of the property and the property vests in his/her children, an application for eviction on account of non-maintenance and ill- treatment is maintainable. In other words, where the property earlier vested in the senior citizen and was later transferred by him to his children, such senior citizen can file an application for eviction. Needless to say that in all cases where an eviction application is filed, the procedure needs to be complied with. 26. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is decided as follows: i. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 is set aside; ii. The application filed by Respondent No. 3 seeking the Petitioner’s eviction is remanded back to Respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration; iii. Respondent No. 2 is directed to follow the procedure laid down under Rule 21(3); iv. Before passing an order, Respondent No. 2 shall also take into consideration the subsequent developments in the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner and also civil proceedings initiated by him; v. Respondent No. 2 shall complete the exercise within a period of Sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.