ORDER : 1. In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 22 nd April, 2021 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1 in Case No.MSC/CR/81/2019-20, wherein the petition filed by respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioners herein under Sections 4, 5 and 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Senior Citizens Act') came to be allowed. 2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are that the respondents 2 and 3 herein are the parents of the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2 is the Wife of the petitioner No.1. The respondent No.2 is the absolute owner of the Site bearing No.750 situate at Gokula, 1 st Stage, 2 nd Phase, Diwanarapalya, Gokula Extension, Bengaluru. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 had filed Original Suit No.8815 of 2017 against the respondents 2 and 3 before the competent Civil Court, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. In the meanwhile, respondents 2 and 3 have filed Case No.MSC/CR/81/2019-20 before the respondent No.1 under Sections 4, 5 and 22(2) of the Senior Citizens Act, seeking possession of the land. The respondent No.1, after considering the material on record, by order dated 22 nd April, 2021 (Annexure-A) allowed the petition and directed the petitioners herein to handover the vacant possession of the entire petition schedule property subject to the orders passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No.15127 of 2019 dated 29 th January, 2021 and in the pending proceedings in Original Suit No.8815 of 2017. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners presented this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri. Suhas P., learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1; Sri. Shivani Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2; and Sri. Anandeeswar D.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 4. Sri. Suhas P., learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents 2 and 3 have filed petition before the respondent No.1, seeking award of Rs.10,000/- towards their maintenance, however, the respondent No.1 passed an order to evict the petitioners from the petition schedule property, which is impermissible under law. Anandeeswar D.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 4. Sri. Suhas P., learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents 2 and 3 have filed petition before the respondent No.1, seeking award of Rs.10,000/- towards their maintenance, however, the respondent No.1 passed an order to evict the petitioners from the petition schedule property, which is impermissible under law. It is also argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondents 2 and 3 are owning other immovable properties including a Petrol Bunk and at the behest of the daughter of the respondents 2 and 3, they have initiated the impugned proceedings against the petitioners. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri. Shivani Shetty and Sri. Anandeeswar D.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 respectively, sought for eviction of the petitioners on the ground that the respondents 2 and 3 are under mental agony and suffering from the harassment from the petitioners. Accordingly, they sought for eviction of the petitioners for the schedule property. 6. Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1. 7. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. The respondents 2 and 3 have approached the respondent No.1, seeking relief of direction to the petitioners herein to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards their maintenance as well as sought for eviction of the petitioners herein from the schedule property. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners herein have preferred Original Suit No.8815 of 2017 before the competent Civil Court, seeking relief of partition and separate possession. It is argued at Bar that the said suit filed by the petitioners came to be withdrawn. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the Writ Petition No.15127 of 2019 is also disposed of on 29 th January, 2021. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 is owning a Petrol Bunk. In the backdrop of these aspects, the respondent No.1 passed an order allowing the petition filed by the respondents 2 and 3 and directed the petitioners herein to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 is owning a Petrol Bunk. In the backdrop of these aspects, the respondent No.1 passed an order allowing the petition filed by the respondents 2 and 3 and directed the petitioners herein to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property. The language employed under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, provides for transfer of property to be invalidated if such, transfer is made in derogation of not providing basic amenities for maintenance of the Senior Citizens. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samtola Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669 at paragraphs 30 to 32 held as under: "30. The Senior Citizens Act vide Chapter-II provides for maintenance of parents and senior citizens. It inter alia provides a senior citizen or a parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning owned by him shall be entitled to make an application against his parent or grand parent or against one or more of his children (not a minor) or where the senior citizen is issueless against specified relatives to fulfil his needs to enable him to lead a normal life. The Tribunal constituted under the Act on such an application may provide for the monthly allowance for the maintenance and expenses and in the event they fail to comply with the order, the Tribunal may for breach of the order issue a warrant for levying fines and may sentence such person to imprisonment for a term which may extent to one month or until payment is made whichever is earlier. 31. The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person. It is only on account of the observations made by this Court in S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors. that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens. The Tribunal thus head acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act which otherwise provide for treating the sale of the property to be void if it is against the interest of the senior citizen. 32. The Tribunal thus head acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act which otherwise provide for treating the sale of the property to be void if it is against the interest of the senior citizen. 32. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in Urmila Dixit (supra) . However, even in the aforesaid case the court has only held that in a given case, the Tribunal "may order" eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case. The Appellate Tribunal has not recorded any reason necessitating the eviction of Krishna Kumar or that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient to order eviction so as to ensure the protection of the Senior Citizen." 8. It is also relevant to deduce the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamalakant Mishra vs. Additional Collector and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2077 [SLP (Civil) Dairy No. 42786 of 2025 decided on 12 th September, 2025] particularly the paragraph 7, which reads as under: "7. The framework of the Act clearly notes that the law was enacted to address the plight of older persons, for their care and protection. Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose. This Court on several occasions has observed that the Tribunal is well within its powers of a senior citizens, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen. In the present case, despite being financially stable, the respondent has acted in breach of his statutory obligations in not allowing the appellant to reside in the properties owned by him, thereby frustrating the very object of the Act. High Court fell in error in allowing the writ petition on a completely untenable ground." 9. It is also relevant to extract paragraphs 12 to 15 in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and Another, (2024) 14 SCC 225 , which reads as under: "Consideration of submissions 12. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Before dealing with the factual aspects, it is necessary to advert to the legal aspects. It is also relevant to extract paragraphs 12 to 15 in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and Another, (2024) 14 SCC 225 , which reads as under: "Consideration of submissions 12. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Before dealing with the factual aspects, it is necessary to advert to the legal aspects. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate acting as the Maintenance Tribunal under the 2007 Act has invoked the power under Section 23 to declare that the subject release deed was void. The 2007 Act has been enacted for the purpose of making effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution of India. The Maintenance Tribunal has been established under Section 7 to exercise various powers under the 2007 Act. Section 8 provides that the Maintenance Tribunal, subject to any rules which may be framed by the Government, has to adopt such summary procedure while holding inquiry, as it deems fit. 13. Apart from the power to grant maintenance, the Tribunal exercises important jurisdiction under Section 23 of the 2007 Act which reads thus: “ 23.Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances .— (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal. (2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right. (3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 5.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. (3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 5.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. Sub-Section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the expression “by way of gift or otherwise”. For attracting sub-section (1) of Section 23, the following two conditions must be fulfilled: (a) The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; (b) The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor. If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void. 15. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal." 10. On careful consideration of the aforementioned judgments, I am of the view that the Tribunal is bound to invalidate the transaction made by the Senior Citizens, only when the Transferee fails to provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the Transferor and ought to have declared such transaction as void. The facts on record and also the Photographs produced along with writ papers makes it clear that the respondents 2 and 3 are deriving financial benefits from the Petrol Bunk and have immovable properties. There is no alienation of property by the respondents 2 and 3 in favour of the petitioners. The facts on record and also the Photographs produced along with writ papers makes it clear that the respondents 2 and 3 are deriving financial benefits from the Petrol Bunk and have immovable properties. There is no alienation of property by the respondents 2 and 3 in favour of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration fact that the respondent No.1 had ordered for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the petitioners to the respondents 2 and 3 herein in the claim petition, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the respondent No.1 to order for eviction of the petitioners from the schedule property would go against the object of the Senior Citizens Act. 11. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that there are three floors in the house in which the respondents 2 and 3 are residing. Therefore, there is no impediment for the respondents 2 and 3 to allow the petitioners herein to reside in the one of the three floors since, the same would not come in the way of wellbeing of the respondents 2 and 3, if so desires. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondent No.1 committed an error in allowing the petition and having determined the maintenance to be payable by the petitioners herein, erroneously ordered for eviction of the petitioners from the schedule property, which is per se contrary to the Senior Citizens. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 requires to be set-aside in this writ petition. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER : i) Writ petition allowed. ii) Impugned order dated 22 nd April, 2021 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1 is hereby set-aside.