ORDER : K. Manmadha Rao, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling tor the records pertains to the orders of the respondent in Rc No l824/2022-A dated 30/10/2023 in ordering to hand over possession of the House Property where the petitioner is residing to the 4th respondent herein without considering the fact that the same is subject matter of Suit for declaration and Appeal arising out of the said Suit pending before this Honble Court in A S No l291 of 2017 wherein the 4th respondent is also one of the defendants and pendency of another Suit in O.S.No.14 of 2023 which is pending on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, as illegal, arbitrary excessive exercise of jurisdiction vested under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and to consequently to set aside the same in the interest of justice and to pass…” 2. Brief facts of the case are the 4th respondent herein is petitioner’s mother. She filed a complaint before the 3rd respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short „the Act, 2007’) seeking eviction of the petitioner and handing over possession of the House Property where the petitioner is residing along with his family bearing Door No.16-24-32/5, ?.?.Street, Sali Peta, Tenali, besides seeking for maintenance. On receipt of Notice from the 3rd respondent, the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent and subsequently filed counter denying the allegations made by the 4th respondent. It is stated that the relief sought for by the 4th respondent in the complaint before the 3rd respondent is under the Act, 2007. The 3rd respondent rightly held that no maintenance is awarded to the applicant/4th respondent herein as she is the sole beneficiary of Family Pension of approximately Rs.35,000/- per month. But quite surprisingly directed the petitioner to leave possession of the House within 30 days from the date of the order and should handover possession to the 4" respondent herein. The 3rd respondent further directed the Station House Officer and the concerned officials to take necessary action for implementation of the order including his dispossession. But quite surprisingly directed the petitioner to leave possession of the House within 30 days from the date of the order and should handover possession to the 4" respondent herein. The 3rd respondent further directed the Station House Officer and the concerned officials to take necessary action for implementation of the order including his dispossession. Quite surprisingly the 3rd respondent has passed order not only in favor of the 4th respondent and also in favour of one Nalla Rama Rao who is not a party to the present proceedings and who is defendant in O.S.No.14 of 2023 which was filed by the petitioner under Specific Relief Act. It is further stated that the petitioner’s mother-4 th respondent having aware of the fact that the said property was purchased by the petitioner with his own earnings, taking undue advantage of registration of the said site in her name, with a malafide intention to cause loss to the petitioner had executed Registered Gift Deed in favour of his brother Sanka Suresh in the year 2011 while the construction of 2nd floor was in process without completion of works. Further, since the petitioner has purchased the subject property with his own earnings but in the name of his mother, the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.98 of 2011 against the petitioner’s mother, his brother and subsequent purchaser on the file of the XI Additional District Judge’s Court, Tenali for declaration and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on an erroneous consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal vide A.S No.1291 of 2017. But, the 3rd respondent without considering all these facts, has passed the impugned order vide Rc.No.1824/2022-A, dated 30.10.2023 and directed the petitioner to vacate the subject premises and to handover the same to the 4th respondent herein, which is nothing but exercising jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Thus the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is without any authority of law. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed counter affidavit and denied all the allegations made in the petition. It is contended that Smt. Sanka Bangaramma, W/o late Madhusudhana Rao filed a petition under Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (for short “Act”) with a request to evict the respondent from the petition schedule property in order to safeguard her life. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed counter affidavit and denied all the allegations made in the petition. It is contended that Smt. Sanka Bangaramma, W/o late Madhusudhana Rao filed a petition under Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (for short “Act”) with a request to evict the respondent from the petition schedule property in order to safeguard her life. She stated that she constructed a building with five floors by obtaining the loan from Andhra Bank, Morrispet Branch, Tenali. Since then, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by paying necessary taxes to the concerned authorities. Later, the 4th respondent became a defaulter to pay the loan obtained from Andhra Bank. Morrispet Branch. Accordingly, the bank authorities conducted auction in respect of petition schedule property and one Nalla Rama Rao, S/o. Sambaiah became the prize bidder in that auction, accordingly the bank authorities executed a sale deed in favour of the Nalla Rama Rao on 27-07-2005 and duly registered the same vide document bearing No.4649/2015 of SRO, Tenali. Since then, the said Nalla Rama Rao became the bonafide purchaser to the petition schedule property. However, it is further stated that, this respondent has been living in one portion and the petitioner has been living in another portion of the 1st floor of the petition schedule property. With a great love and affection towards the petition schedule property the 4 th respondent entered into an oral agreement with the said Nalla Rama Rao to purchase the petition schedule property again. Accordingly, the said Nalla Rama Rao, who is 5th respondent herein also ready to register the petition schedule property in the name of Smt. Sanka Bangaramma after receiving the sale consideration. Later, Smt. Sanka Bangaramma paid some part of sale consideration of Rs.41,50,000/- to the account of Nalla Rama Rao through her Andhra Bank account on 11-09-2015. It is further stated that the question of ownership of the said property in the instant case was subject to Civil suit in O.S.No.98 of 2011 on the file of XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tenali, which was filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff and the question of ownership of the said property has been amply dealt with and settled by the competent Court vide its judgment dated 30.08.2017. Therefore, it is clearly found that the petitioner has no title in the property and it belonged solely to Sanka Bangaramma prior to the sale deed made by bank authorities in the name of Nalla Rama Rao. 4. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the report submitted by previous RDO, Tenali to the Lokayukta is in no way binding on Senior Citizen Tribunal to take up or not to take up a senior citizen case. It is merely a report in a separate case and no such orders were passed by the Lokayuktha. Moreover, the said report was not presented to the Tribunal during enquiry or hearing by the petitioner at any point of time. Hence the complainant Sanka Bangaramma’s petition dated 6.12.2022 to Senior Citizen Tribunal clearly states harassment and threatening which squarely falls under section 6 of the Senior Citizen Act 2007, which is contrary to petitioner’s contention that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. In view of the above, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development Child Welfare; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue; Sri V.Ch. Naidu and Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition contended that in the impugned order though it was mentioned that Appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal and District Collector, Guntur, within 60 days, as per Section 16 of the Act provides that a Senior Citizen or a Parent aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal has a right to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within 60 days from the date of the order of the Tribunal, but no appeal is specifically provided for the Children aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, learned counsel submits that as there has no other go except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court as provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. He further submits that the impugned order passed by 3rd respondent is without any authority and contrary to the provisions of the Act. As such, the writ petition is maintainable questioning the impugned order. 7. He further submits that the impugned order passed by 3rd respondent is without any authority and contrary to the provisions of the Act. As such, the writ petition is maintainable questioning the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the year 2013 the petitioner’s mother/4th respondent had approached the Hon'ble Lokayukta vide Complaint No.4108/2013/B2 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 06.09.2013 directing the District Collector to direct the concerned RDO having jurisdiction over the place and summon the parties and try the matter etc., Pursuant to the said orders, the petitioner was given Notice dated 23.11.2013 by the then RDO, Tenali and conducted an enquiry and the then RDO submitted report dated 19.12.2013 to the Sub Divisional Police Officer to take necessary action. He further submits that, in the report, it was clearly mentioned by the then RDO that the matter will not be attracted under the provisions of Welfare and Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as the complainant drawing Family Pension and living with her second son and it was also mentioned that, it is the dispute among the Family members about the properties. The order of the Hon’ble Lokayuktha and the report of the then RDO were submitted by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent. But without having any jurisdiction under the Act 2007, passed the impugned order, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 8. Per contra, learned Assistant Government pleaders appearing for the respondents have also reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit and opposed for allowing the writ petition. 9. Whereas, learned counsel for the 4th respondent while denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that, there is no illegality in order Rc.No.1824/22A, dated 30.10.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent and moreover even if the petitioner has aggrieved against the said order, he has effective alternative remedy under Section 16 of Senior Citizens Act 2007 and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel mainly contended that the 4th respondent herein is the original owner of the property in question and she has purchased the property bearing D.No.16-24-32/5 (Old No.16-24/38) on land admeasuring 223.30 sq. Learned counsel mainly contended that the 4th respondent herein is the original owner of the property in question and she has purchased the property bearing D.No.16-24-32/5 (Old No.16-24/38) on land admeasuring 223.30 sq. yards situated at ward No.5 Tenali, Guntur District under registered sale deed dated 01.09.2005 from its owner and she was in possession and enjoyment of the said property till the petitioner illegally thrown her out of the said property. He further submits that when the property was put for auction, the 4th respondent herein was in possession of the first floor and shop in ground floor along with the petitioner and his family. However, as the 4th respondent did not have any accommodation, when she requested the said auction purchaser to grant some time to vacate and handover by them including the petitioner, he granted time to vacate and handover the possession even though the bank and himself resorted for the proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitization Act to evict them from the said property on humanitarian grounds. 10. Learned counsel further submits that though the respondent agreed to handover the said property to Said Nalla Rama Rao, the petitioner occupied the first floor portion in which the 4th respondent has been residing and necked her out for handing over the possession to its actual owner and auction purchaser. Since the 4th respondent was mercilessly and highhandedly necked out by her son and the petitioner herein, she was constrained to file an application before the 3rd respondent to handover her peaceful possession fo the property to obey the undertaking and promise made to Sri Nalla Rama Rao, auction purchaser. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent, after having considered all the facts, passed an order, directing the petitioner to deliver the possession to the 4th respondent and there is no illegality, since the occupation of the petitioner over the property is illegal and therefore the petitioner is liable to be evicted since he is neither owner nor having any right over the property. He further submits that since the said property was already purchased by Sri Nalla Rama Rao in an auction conducted by Andhra Bank for default committed by the 4th respondent in payment of the loan. He further submits that since the said property was already purchased by Sri Nalla Rama Rao in an auction conducted by Andhra Bank for default committed by the 4th respondent in payment of the loan. Learned counsel further submits that the order of the 3rd respondent is to deliver the possession of the subject property from the petitioner to the 4th respondent, since she was necked out by the petitioner with malafide intention to create further litigation over the property and harass her at this age. He mainly contended that the possession of the petitioner is illegal, unauthorized and without any manner of right and occupied by necked out the 4th respondent from the portion of the house only with deliberate intention denies the right of the auction purchaser. Therefore, learned counsel prayed to dismiss the petition. 11. On perusing the material available on record, this Court observed that, admittedly, the 4th respondent herein is the mother of the petitioner. She filed a complaint before the 3rd respondent under the Act 2007 seeking eviction of petitioner and handing over possession of the House property where the petitioner is residing along with his family besides seeking for maintenance. It is further observed that, the 3rd respondent in its order held that no maintenance is awarded to the applicant/4th respondent as she is the sole beneficiary of Family Pension of approximately Rs.35,000/- per month. It is further observed from the impugned that, the petitioner/respondent therein is to cease all harassment and not to cause trouble to the petitioner therein/4th respondent herein or Nalla Rama Rao in any way, either directly or indirectly, and instead to see the welfare of 4th respondent. 12. It is the contention of the petitioner that though it was mentioned that appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal and District Collector, Guntur within 60 days as per Section 16 of the Act provides that a Senior Citizen or a Parent aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal has a right to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within 60 days from the date of the order of the Tribunal, but no appeal is specifically provided for the Children aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal. 13. 13. It is the further contention of the petitioner counsel that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and the unofficial respondent-4 th respondent is not residing at the subject property. Further, the 4th respondent is the Pensioner, who is receiving Rs.35,000/- towards pension every month and she has been maintaining by the petitioner in all respects. The impugned order dated 30.10.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. The subject property was not transferred by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner either by way of gift or any other valid deed. Whereas the petitioner acquired right of possession through an Agreement of Sale from third party, who acquired the subject property through registered sale deed out of public auction conducted by the auction. Therefore, the possession of the petitioner is not in pursuance of any deed executed by the 4th respondent herein. So, the transactions and circumstances would not come under the purview of Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens act 2007. As such the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to order for eviction of the petitioner from the subject property. 14. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the 4th respondent is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property and also admitted that the subject property was already alienated in favour of the third party i.e., one Sri Nalla Rama Rao by the Bank and also admitted that the subject property was mortgaged by the 4th respondent which was alienated in favour of the third party. 15. 15. It is pertinent to mention here that, as per Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007, reads as under: Section 16 : Appeals : 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: Provided that on appeal, the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of such maintenance order shall continue to pay to such parent the amount so ordered, in the manner directed by the Appellate Tribunal: Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. 16. On a plain reading of the above, Section 16 is not provided for other than the parents and senior citizens. In view of the above circumstances, this Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner vide order dated 29.11.2023 to visit the subject property and after physical verification of the subject property and issuing notice to the parties concerned, determine the issue of possession of the parties and shall submit a detailed report within a period of three weeks. Further, this Court also directed the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent shall cooperate for the inspection. Till then, this Court directed both parties to maintain status quo in all respects. 17. As seen from the report of the Commissioner, wherein it was stated that during his visit to the subject house property along with the Tahsildar, Tenali, Guntur District along with his office subordinates at around 1.30 p.m. on 8.12.2023 it is evident that the property in question is an unfinished apartment/group house of G+5 floors with 2 to 3 different door numbers. It is further mentioned that the petitioner in the instant case is present along with his wife and son and further they are residing at the subject property on the first floor and is running a cloth shop on the ground floor under the name and style of “G.K. Enterprises”. It is further mentioned that the petitioner in the instant case is present along with his wife and son and further they are residing at the subject property on the first floor and is running a cloth shop on the ground floor under the name and style of “G.K. Enterprises”. Upon being asked to produce their gas connection/ electricity connection or any other documents to substantiate their right of possession over the subject house property the petitioner has produced documents related o gas and electricity connections, Aadhar card, Voter identity card and Value Added Tax Registration Certificate of G.K Enterprises. Therefore, on verifying the same, the Commissioner stated that the petitioner along with his wife and son are residing on the first floor and were in possession of the subject property in question. 18. This Court further observed that, there is a civil dispute pending in between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and the suit in O.S No.14 of 2023 and appeal suit in A.S No.1291 of 2017 are pending in the civil courts, the 3rd respondent without any jurisdiction has issued impugned order directing the petitioner herein to cease all harassment and not to cause trouble to the 4th respondent or to Nalla Rama Rao in any way, either directly or indirectly and instead to see the welfare of his Senior mother which is his bounden duty. It is the contention of the petitioner that, in the impugned order, it was also directed the concerned Station House Officer to take necessary action for implementation of the order including the dispossession of the petitioner from the House property and in view of the same, the petitioner is apprehending that he will be dispossessed from the House property wherein the petitioner is residing with his family pursuant to the impugned order of the 3 rd respondent. 19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to allow the petition declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.10.2023 in Rc.No.1824/2022-A issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.