JUDGMENT : Mr. Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) : Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for setting aside/quashing the order dated 27.01.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.1, vide which, order dated 15.09.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2/SDM, Dhuri, District Sangrur has been set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3, who is a senior citizen and is the father of the petitioner, had filed an application to the SDM-cum-Maintenance Tribunal dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-1) for vacation of the premises in question. In the said application, it had been stated that respondent No.3 was the owner of the property in question, on which he had constructed a Gurudwara i.e. Gurudwara Dukh Bhanjan Sahib near Punchvati Mandir, Dhuri and stated that the petitioner was in bad company and since 1990 he had no relations with respondent No.3 and when respondent No.3 was unwell in the year 2011, it is the people of the locality, who took care of him and when the respondent No.3 was admitted in CMC Ludhiana in the year 2011, the petitioner took illegal possession of the said property and even tried to sell it further. It is prayed by respondent No.3 that the possession of the said property be handed over to respondent No.3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no reply to the said application was filed, but has submitted that statements of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 were recorded by the SDM, Dhuri on 09.09.2020, which have been reproduced in para Nos.4 and 5 of the petition. In the said statement dated 09.09.2020 of the present petitioner, such facts have been stated which show that there was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3. It has been stated by the petitioner that his daughter told him that respondent No.3 had given a leg blow to his wife and since then there was a misunderstanding between them and that respondent No.3 never came for the Bhog Ceremony of his wife. It has been stated by the petitioner that his daughter told him that respondent No.3 had given a leg blow to his wife and since then there was a misunderstanding between them and that respondent No.3 never came for the Bhog Ceremony of his wife. In para No.4 of the writ petition, statement of respondent No.3 has been reproduced, who had specifically stated that the present petitioner was not allowing him to stay in the property in question and in spite of the fact that he had undergone four operations, the petitioner never took care of him. 4. The SDM, Dhuri, observed that respondent No.3 was the owner of the property by virtue of the sale deed No.2630 dated 04.12.2008, but without any justifiable reason, did not allow the application for eviction. Respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate, Sangrur, who vide order dated 27.01.2021, allowed the said appeal and ordered that the possession of the land in dispute be handed over to respondent No.3. In the said order, it has been observed that respondent No.3 was the owner of the property in question and the present petitioner was in unauthorized occupation. It is the said order, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 5. On 09.03.2021, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to issue notice on the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a possibility of an amicable resolution of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3. The said order dated 09.03.2021 is reproduced herein below: - “This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to the outbreak of pandemic, COVID-19. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a possibility of an amicable resolution of the dispute as petitioner being the son of respondent no.3 is ready and willing to serve his father as per terms and conditions which may be set by respondent no.3. Notice of motion, to explore possibility of an amicable resolution of the dispute at this stage. Mr. Abhay Pal Singh Gill, Asst. A.G., Punjab, accept notice on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2. Notice be issued to respondent no.3, for 05.04.2021. Dasti only. Status quo regarding possession as on today be maintained till the next date of hearing.” 6. Notice of motion, to explore possibility of an amicable resolution of the dispute at this stage. Mr. Abhay Pal Singh Gill, Asst. A.G., Punjab, accept notice on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2. Notice be issued to respondent no.3, for 05.04.2021. Dasti only. Status quo regarding possession as on today be maintained till the next date of hearing.” 6. On 10.11.2022, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had noticed that although the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, but the matter had not been resolved. It is thus apparent that notice was primarily issued to consider as to whether there was a possibility of an amicable settlement, which never fructified, but however, the interim order of status quo granted vide order dated 09.03.2021 is continuing till date. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on two grounds. The first ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present writ petition there is no transfer deed executed by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner and thus, the application (Annexure P-1) is not maintainable. The second argument raised is that after the filing of the application (Annexure P-1), the petitioner had made a statement before the SDM, Dhuri, on 09.09.2020, in which, apart from other things, he had also stated that he was ready to take care of respondent No.3 and it is the said part of the statement, which had been considered by the SDM while passing the order dated 15.09.2020. It is submitted that since the petitioner is ready to take care of respondent No.3, thus, the impugned order be set aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, on the other hand, has opposed the present writ petition and has submitted that notice of motion in the present case was issued only to see if there was a possibility of an amicable settlement or not and the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the matter on merits. It is argued that vide order dated 06.04.2021, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the petitioner to contact respondent No.3 and bring him to his house in a graceful manner, but the petitioner has not complied with the said direction. It is argued that vide order dated 06.04.2021, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the petitioner to contact respondent No.3 and bring him to his house in a graceful manner, but the petitioner has not complied with the said direction. It is submitted that respondent No.3 is the owner of the premises in question and the petitioner is in illegal occupation and respondent No.3 had no other property and is now living at the mercy of others. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and the same be upheld. 9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book and finds that there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Smt. S Vanitha Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., reported as [ 2021(15) SCC 730 , had observed that a Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has the authority to pass an order of eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent and that, the eviction in other words would be an incidence of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection. Relevant part of para No.25 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: - “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 25. The substance of sub-section (2) of Section 23, as submitted by the Second and Third respondents, is that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to pass an order directing the eviction of the appellant who is their daughter-in-law. According to the submission, the power to order eviction is implicit in the provision guaranteeing a “right to receive maintenance out of an estate and the enforcement of that right. In supporting the submission, they have referred to the view which has been taken by several High Courts, indicating that the Tribunal may order the eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, where there has been a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen. The Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 may have the authority to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent. The Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 may have the authority to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent. Eviction, in other words would be an incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection.” 11. This Court in CWP-15170-2023 titled as “Ravi Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Jhajjar and others, decided on 20.07.2023, after taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. S. Vanitha’s case (supra) had upheld an order of eviction passed therein by the authorities under Act of 2007. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under: - “9. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken into consideration the legislative scheme of the 2007 Act & reference was also made to Chapter V of the 2007 Act which provide for “protection of life and property of senior citizens”. The objects of the Act which included a need to give more attention to the care & protection of older persons was also taken into consideration. It was observed that the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal was of a summary nature. The contesting claim for both the parties to the effect as to whether the authorities under the Act have the jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings for eviction was also noticed. Relevant part of Paragraph No.6; Paragraphs 15, 16, 17 in their entirety as well as relevant portion of Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the above judgment are reproduced as under: - xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 6. The appellant specifically raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the authorities to entertain the proceedings seeking her eviction from the premises. She submitted that while the Senior Citizens Act 2007 provides for the maintenance of a senior citizen or a parent, there is no provision envisaging an order of eviction, and that the authorities had no jurisdiction to direct her removal from the premises. C. Legislative scheme: Senior Citizens Act, 2007 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 15. The rival submissions will now be analysed. 16. Our analysis of the rival submissions must begin with explaining and interpreting the salient feature of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 which have a bearing on the present controversy. C. Legislative scheme: Senior Citizens Act, 2007 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 15. The rival submissions will now be analysed. 16. Our analysis of the rival submissions must begin with explaining and interpreting the salient feature of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 which have a bearing on the present controversy. “Maintenance is defined in an inclusive manner to incorporate, among other things, provisions for food, clothing, residence, medical assistance and treatment. In defining the expression “property”, the legislation uses broad terminology encompassing “property of any kind” and to include “rights or interests in such property”. Overriding effect is given to the provisions of the enactment by Section 3. Besides the definitions which are comprised in Chapter I, Chapter II is titled “Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens” while Chapter V is titled “Protection of Life and Property of Senior Citizen”. 17. The Statement of Objects and Reasons indicates the rationale for the enactment of the law: “Traditional norms and values of the Indian society laid stress on providing care for the elderly. However, due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family. Consequently, many older persons, particularly widowed women are now forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support. This clearly reveals that ageing has become a major social challenge and there is a need to give more attention to the care and protection for the older persons. Though the parents can claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the procedure is both time – consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 19. xxx xxx xxx Hence, in the case of the children of a senior citizen, the obligation to maintain a parent is not conditional on being in possession of property of the senior citizen or upon a right of future inheritance. 20. The procedure to be followed by a Maintenance Tribunal (constituted under Section 7 is of a summary nature as provided in Section 8(1) and with all the powers of a Civil Court, as provided in Section 8(2). xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 12. 20. The procedure to be followed by a Maintenance Tribunal (constituted under Section 7 is of a summary nature as provided in Section 8(1) and with all the powers of a Civil Court, as provided in Section 8(2). xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 12. Even appeal bearing LPA-1387-2023 filed against the said judgment has also been dismissed. 13. It is not in dispute that in the present case, respondent No.3 is a senior citizen and is the owner of the property in question. A perusal of the order dated 15.09.2020 would show that it had been observed by the Tribunal that respondent No.3 was the owner of the property in dispute on account of sale deed dated 2630 dated 04.12.2008. The said two aspects have not been disputed before this Court. A perusal of the application dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-1) as well as statement of respondent No.3 recorded on 09.09.2020, which has been reproduced in para No.4 of the writ petition, would show that it was specifically stated by respondent No.3 that the petitioner was in bad company since 1990 and the petitioner had not allowed respondent No.3 to stay in the premises in question, which is owned by him and that the petitioner had not taken care of him in spite of four operations and thus, respondent No.3 was demanding possession of the said property. Even the statement dated 09.09.2020 of the petitioner, which has been reproduced in para 5, would show that there was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3, inasmuch as, the petitioner had stated in his statement that there was a fight which took place between respondent No.3 and his wife and it was told to him by his daughter and that respondent No.3 never came for the Bhog Ceremony of the death of the wife of the petitioner. It has not been disputed before this Court that at present, it is the petitioner who is in possession of the property in question, which is owned by respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 is having to live at different places on the mercy of other persons. The said fact also establishes the plea raised by respondent No.3 to the effect that the petitioner has taken forcible possession of the property and has not taken care of respondent No.3. The said fact also establishes the plea raised by respondent No.3 to the effect that the petitioner has taken forcible possession of the property and has not taken care of respondent No.3. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is necessary to uphold the order of eviction in order to grant adequate protection to respondent No.3, who is the owner of the property in question and is a senior citizen and is the father of the present petitioner. The facts and circumstances of the present case bring the case within the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Vanitha (supra) and also of this Court in Ravi Kumar’s (supra) and thus, the petition filed for eviction by respondent No.3 is maintainable and the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the petition is not maintainable is liable to be rejected. The right of a senior citizen to get a transfer deed cancelled under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is distinct from the right of a senior citizen to seek eviction of the property in question and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as detailed herein above, this Court is of the view that the respondent No.3 has the right to seek eviction of the petitioner. 14. A perusal of the order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide which notice of motion was issued, would reveal that the primary reason for issuance of notice of motion was to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. Further, a perusal of order dated 10.11.2022 would show that no such amicable settlement had been arrived at and thus, on the said short ground also, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and the petitioner is estopped from raising any plea on merits. However, to do complete justice, this Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has adjudicated the case on merits also. 15. However, to do complete justice, this Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has adjudicated the case on merits also. 15. The second argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner had given a statement before the SDM that he was ready to serve respondent No.3, would also not in any way further the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, there is nothing on record to suggest that prior to the date of filing of the application dated 13.09.2019, the petitioner had taken care of respondent No.3. No amount of maintenance, much less a fixed amount per month, had been given by the petitioner to respondent No.3 to enable respondent No.3 to maintain himself. From the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is apparent that the petitioner has not permitted respondent No.3 to stay in the premises in question and has occupied the premises whereas respondent No.3 is having to live at the mercy of others. Mere by making a statement to the effect that the petitioner is ready to serve the respondent No.3, more so, once the application for eviction has been instituted by respondent No.3 in order to save himself from eviction cannot be made the basis for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2021, which has been passed in accordance with law. 16. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.