ORDER : (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.) 1. The Petitioner- Senior Citizen in WP No.4280/2024 is before this Court seeking the following reliefs : a. Issue a writ of certiorari, setting aside the impugned order pertaining to the direction to R2 and R3 to accommodate petitioner in the subject property i.e., schedule property No.2, within 30 days from the date of the order passed by the respondent no.1 on 29.01.2020, in Misc.Cr.106/2018-19 vide Annexure- E. b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the R2 and 3 to hand over/ give possession of the subject property i.e., schedule property No.2 to the petitioner with immediate effect. c. Pass such other orders as may be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity. 2. The Petitioners in WP No.11886/2021 are before this Court seeking the following reliefs : d. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 29.01.2020 in proceedings No. MSC.CR.106/2018-19 passed by the R1 vide Annexure-D e. Pass such other orders as may be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity. 3. Facts in WP No.4280 of 2024 : 3.1. Petitioner No.1 in WP No.11886 of 2021 is the Son of Respondent No.2-therein, who is none other than the Petitioner in WP No.4280 of 2024. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner in WP No.4280 of 2024 Smt.Krishnaveni (hereinafter referred to as “Mother”) is the owner of Municipal Corporation bearing No.988 situated at Hosur-Sarjapura Road layout, Sector-7, Bengaluru (herein after referred to as “HSR property”) measuring East to West 9.14 metres and North to South 12.19 metres which is allotted to her by the BDA and a sale deed executed in her favour on 07.06.2001. Mother is also stated to be the founder and promoter of Gayathri Educational Institution and Universal Education Institutions, running several colleges and schools. The said institutions were being run by Mother until respondents No.2 and 3, i.e., her Son and daughter-in-law, became the directors of the said Trust. 3.2. Respondent No.2 is the Son of the Mother (hereinafter referred to as “Son”), Respondent No.2 is the Daughter-In-Law of the Mother (hereinafter referred to as “Daughter- in-law”). Apart from Respondent No.2-son, Mother does not have any other children. After their marriage, Son and Daughter-in-law are stated to be living separately in Chikkaballapura. 3.2. Respondent No.2 is the Son of the Mother (hereinafter referred to as “Son”), Respondent No.2 is the Daughter-In-Law of the Mother (hereinafter referred to as “Daughter- in-law”). Apart from Respondent No.2-son, Mother does not have any other children. After their marriage, Son and Daughter-in-law are stated to be living separately in Chikkaballapura. However, since they expressed financial difficulties, they were made directors of the aforesaid society and were given the post of Joint Secretary and Vice President of the Society. Mother claims that in the year 2016, they pleaded with her and sought permission to live with her, till they made alternate arrangements in Bangalore and as such they were accommodated in her home bearing No.149, Karnataka layout, 1 st Cross, West of Chord Road, 2 nd Stage, Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore-560 086 (herein after referred to as “Mahalakshmipuram Property” ). 3.3. The Mahalakshmipuram property is stated to be purchased by the Mother under a sale dated 02.12.1992, which is also not in dispute. The Mother claims that the Son and daughter-in-law taking undue advantage of her advanced age promised that they will look after her and got the petitioner to execute a gift deed in respect of the HSR property in the name of the Son, wherein they had stated that they would be putting up of a construction of a house. It is in pursuance thereof, that she executed a gift deed on 18.03.2006, which came to be registered in the office of the Sub-registrar of Bangalore South. 3.4. The Son and daughter-in-law had been appointed in the society to enable them to receive certain salaries and emoluments. The Mother claims that the Son and daughter-in-law started parallel administration of both the societies and opened different accounts in the name of the society and transferred the monies collected into those accounts without the permission of the Managing Committee. Mother received many complaints regarding the administration and found the Son and daughter-in-law having opened dubious accounts which was confronted to them, when they started abusing the Mother, threatened her and took her signatures on blank papers. They also started misappropriating funds of the society. Mother received many complaints regarding the administration and found the Son and daughter-in-law having opened dubious accounts which was confronted to them, when they started abusing the Mother, threatened her and took her signatures on blank papers. They also started misappropriating funds of the society. The daughter-in-law on 15.07.2017 entered the chamber of the Mother in the society and threatened her, snatched her mobile phone, broke it into two pieces and on the same night the Mother and father were thrown out of their home in Mahalakshmipuram, when they started living with their friend Smt.Savitri Gundi. 3.5. In the absence of the Mother and father, the Son and daughter-in-law are stated to have forged and fabricated resolutions, opened another account in Vijaya Bank and siphoned off the funds of the institution. The Mother and father with the help of their friend rented out a house in Basaveswarnagar on monthly rental of Rs.20,000/-. The Son and daughter-in-law stopped the salary and other honorarium facilities that she is getting from the Education institution, putting the Mother into financial difficulty, whereas the Son and daughter-in-law continue to draw salaries from the institution, as also usurped the property of the petitioner and her husband measuring nearly 1.6 acres of land which is also grabbed by the Son and daughter-in-law. 3.6. It is in that background that the Mother alleges that she was constrained to approach the Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Seniors Citizens and Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), in MSC.CR.106/2018-19 to get back the residential premises at Mahalakshmipuram and to reconvey the gifted property at HSR Layout. The Mother had also filed an application to hand over the Mahalakshmipuram property which was forcefully occupied by the Son and daughter-in- law. 3.7. The Assistant Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 29.01.2020 directed the Son and daughter-in-law to reconvey the HSR property on account of he having failed to look after the parents and directed the Son and daughter-in- law to accommodate the petitioner in the Mahalakshmipuram property within 30 days. 3.8. The Mother contends that such an order is perverse inasmuch as the Mahalakshmipuram property belongs to her, which is under the forceful occupation of the Son and daughter-in- law. 3.8. The Mother contends that such an order is perverse inasmuch as the Mahalakshmipuram property belongs to her, which is under the forceful occupation of the Son and daughter-in- law. The question of the Son and daughter-in- law accommodating her in her own house would not arise, there being a threat to the life of the Mother she being mentally and physically abused by the Son and daughter-in-law she cannot live with the Son and daughter-in-law and as such they were required to be directed to vacate the property and hand over the property of the Mother which has not been done. She and her husband have been thrown on the streets by the Son and daughter-in-law, forced to take a rented premises in spite of them owning a property. 3.9. The Son and daughter-in-law have also filed false police complaints, which have continued the harassment against her. She contends that the Son and daughter-in-law had filed WP No.11886 of 2021 challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner without exhausting the Alternate Remedy under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “ Senior Citizens Act ”), the order has been stayed by this Court subject to the Son paying Rs.25,000/- to the Mother every month. The said payment was made for a few months and thereafter stopped. Even the said Rs.25,000/- is not sufficient to cater to the rental and the needs of the petitioner and her husband. It is in that background that the writ petition WP No.4280 of 2024 was filed challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner without filing an appeal under Section 16 . Since the stay granted by this Court in WP No.11886 of 2021, there need not be parallel proceedings before two different forums. 4. Facts in WP No.11886/2021: 4.1. The above Petition has been filed by Son and doctor-in-law, the Mother being arrayed as respondent No.2. The relationship between the petitioners and respondent No.2 is not in dispute. The petitioner No.1 is referred to as the Son, the petitioner No.2 is the daughter-in- law, the respondent No.2 is the Mother. 4.2. 4. Facts in WP No.11886/2021: 4.1. The above Petition has been filed by Son and doctor-in-law, the Mother being arrayed as respondent No.2. The relationship between the petitioners and respondent No.2 is not in dispute. The petitioner No.1 is referred to as the Son, the petitioner No.2 is the daughter-in- law, the respondent No.2 is the Mother. 4.2. It is claimed that from and out of the marriage of the Son and daughter-in-law on 17.04.2008, there are two sons who are born, who are studying in the third standard and pre-nursary as on the date of filing of the Petition. It is claimed that earlier, the Son, Mother and father were residing in a rented premises at Nandini Layout. Thereafter, in the year 2000 they moved to Mahalakshmipuram where they have been residing together. The Son claims to have utmost love and affection towards his Mother and father. After his marriage, there were certain misunderstandings between the daughter-in-law and the Mother, which were blown out of proportion due to the ill-advise of sisters and relatives of the Mother which led to certain litigations. 4.3. The Mother did not accept the daughter-in-law since it was a love marriage. The Son and daughter-in-law claimed to be software professionals, the Son working in Wipro technology and the daughter-in-law working in JBA technologies. Both of them had a good chance of going to USA, however, the Mother and father prevailed upon them to stay back. In the year 2008-2009 the educational institutions managed by the Mother were under severe financial crunch due to mal-administration by the sister of the Mother namely Smt.Mangala and another sister's daughter namely Smt.Poornima. 4.4. There being huge debts incurred from Punjab National Bank, State Bank of India, National Bank and private financiers. The loan had become NPA and notices had been issued under the securitisation Act. At that stage, Mother prevailed upon the Son to resign from his lucrative job and join the educational society. In that background, the Son is stated to have joined the educational institution and brought about financial stability. 4.5. It is contended that the Mother’s sisters and her family brought about further misunderstanding between the Mother and daughter-in-law, and when the Mother and father started living separately. It is claimed that the Son and daughter-in-law did not compel them to leave the premises. 4.5. It is contended that the Mother’s sisters and her family brought about further misunderstanding between the Mother and daughter-in-law, and when the Mother and father started living separately. It is claimed that the Son and daughter-in-law did not compel them to leave the premises. Thereafter, there were attempts to remove the Son and daughter-in-law from the post held by them in the society as regards which certain suits which have been filed. The Son claims that the Mother is getting Rs.45,000/- per month as honorarium as well as sum of Rs.65,000/- as rentals. Hence, she has sufficient means to take care of herself. It is claimed that the Son was served with only a notice in one matter i.e., is as regards the cancellation of the gift deed. There is no petition that has been served on him regarding the vacating of the Malakshmipuram property. 4.6. Insofar as the gift deed it is contended that the gift deed has been executed out of pure love and affection, there are no preconditions in the gift deed. Hence, no direction could have been issued to cancel the gift deed by declaring it to be null and void and it is in that background he submits that the present Petition has been found challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 5. Sri.Jaykumar S.Patil., learned Senior counsel, appearing for the Mother, would submit that; 5.1. The Mother has been deprived of her properties. The impugned order does not take into consideration the relevant aspects of the case. By referring to the order of the Assistant Commissioner, he submits that in Para 1, there is a clear and categorical reference made to an earlier petition having been filed seeking a direction to hand over the Malakshmipuram property. 5.2. However, it is noted that during the proceedings, the Mother prayed for the cancellation of the above-said property from the Petition. He submits that no such prayer was ever made; the Mother asserts her claims regarding both properties, and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have considered the handover of the property from the proper perspective and issued necessary orders accordingly. 5.3. Be that as it may, he submits that the Mahalakshmipuram property belongs exclusively to the Mother, with the Son and daughter-in-law having no right, title, or interest in the said property. 5.3. Be that as it may, he submits that the Mahalakshmipuram property belongs exclusively to the Mother, with the Son and daughter-in-law having no right, title, or interest in the said property. This Court, instead of remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, could exercise its extraordinary powers to render justice by directing the handover of the Mahalakshmipuram property to the Mother. Since no defence can be presented by a son and daughter-in-law concerning those properties, the Son and daughter-in-law are not entitled to any portion of the said property. 5.4. He submits that the matter would have to be only considered if there was any claim of the Son and daughter-in-law. If there is no claim which can be entertained, then this Court taking into consideration that the owner of the property is the Mother ought to allow the application which has never been withdrawn as falsely indicated by the assistant commissioner in the impugned order. 5.5. He submits that though there is a conditional stay which had been passed in WP No.11886 of 2021, the amount of Rs.25,000/- which was directed to be paid has not been paid for all the months, it is only certain of the months that the payment has been made. The said payments are not sufficient to pay the rentals and to take care of the daily necessities and medical necessities of the Mother and father. There are several disputes between the Mother and the Son and daughter-in-law as regards the educational institutions, as regards which several litigations have been filed. He contends that the Mother is not receiving any monies from those institutions and all monies have been blocked by Son and daughter-in-law. 5.6. Be that as it may, those aspects will be addressed in the pending matters, as they cannot be raised in the current issue. He submits that the Mother and father have provided their Son with the best education. He joined a private company but could not keep his job and thus became dependent on his Mother. The Mother has accepted the marriage between the Son and daughter-in-law, which was performed by both parents. After the marriage, they chose to live separately in Chikkaballapura. He submits that the Mother and father have provided their Son with the best education. He joined a private company but could not keep his job and thus became dependent on his Mother. The Mother has accepted the marriage between the Son and daughter-in-law, which was performed by both parents. After the marriage, they chose to live separately in Chikkaballapura. However, since they wished to reside in Bangalore, they approached the Mother and father in Malakshmipuram and requested to stay there, which the parents granted without suspecting any malafides intentions on the part of the Son and daughter- in-law. 5.7. It is after they started living with them, that they prevailed upon the parents to make them part of the educational society, which also they did in the hope that they would run the educational institution properly and since anyway, on a future point of time, all the assets of the parents would anyway enure to the benefit of their only Son. However, the Son and daughter-in-law were in a hurry and were not willing to wait and had started swindling monies from the societies as if they were done by the parents, which resulted in several complaints. 5.8. The Managing Committee also filed complaints against the Son and daughter-in-law, which resulted in the Son and daughter-in-law throwing the Mother and father out of the house on the night of 15.07.2017. He submits that thereafter, there were various complaints which have been filed by his Son and daughter- in-law in FIR No.207 of 2021, PCR No.17320 of 2021, etc. He, however, submits that those are not the subject matter of the present Petition and as such he does not wish to get into the facts and disputes therein. 5.9. He however, submits that the gift deed which had been executed though does not bear any particular Clause or condition of the Son being obligated to look after the parents. The said gift deed was executed in the year 2006 under the belief that the Son would look after the parents as is the normal expectation. 5.9. He however, submits that the gift deed which had been executed though does not bear any particular Clause or condition of the Son being obligated to look after the parents. The said gift deed was executed in the year 2006 under the belief that the Son would look after the parents as is the normal expectation. In the Petition which has been filed by the Mother, the Mother has clearly stated the expectation, wherein she has clearly stated, that the Son and daughter- in-law had promised to look after her, which they clearly have not and the Mother and father are now literally on the streets without anyone to care for them and they do not have any funds, the properties having been usurped by the Son and daughter in law. 5.10. It is also clearly stated in the Petition filed before the Assistant Commissioner that the Mother has no income, she has also produced medical records as regards her hospitalisation and the expenses incurred in relation thereto and as such the prayer which had been made for reconveyance of the gifted property being proper and correct has been rightly considered by the Assistant Commissioner. 5.11. As regards an alternative remedy available regarding the non-grant of the relief seeking for the handing over of the possession of the Mahalakshmipuram property. He submits that, since the facts not being in dispute, the ownership of Mahalakshmipuram property not being in dispute, this Court could well consider the same and pass necessary orders. 5.12. He further submits that there would be no purpose served by challenging the very same order before this Court by Son and daughter-in- law and by the Mother before the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal filed under Section 16, if two forums were to consider two different appeals, there could be a possibility of contradictory orders being passed. 5.13. That apart, he submits that if both the appeals were to be considered by the very same Court, like this Court, substantial justice could be rendered in both the matters by taking into consideration all the relevant facts. 6. Sri.R.Padmanabha., learned counsel for the son and daughter-in-law would submit that; 6.1. 5.13. That apart, he submits that if both the appeals were to be considered by the very same Court, like this Court, substantial justice could be rendered in both the matters by taking into consideration all the relevant facts. 6. Sri.R.Padmanabha., learned counsel for the son and daughter-in-law would submit that; 6.1. WP No.4280 of 2024 is not maintainable in as much as the Mother has an alternative efficacy remedy under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act and as such WP No.4280 of 2024 is required to be dismissed in limine. 6.2. Secondly, he submits that the Mother having given up her claim as regards handing over of the possession of Mahalakshmipuram property as indicated in para 1 of the impugned order. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in accommodating the Mother within 30 days being bad in law. 6.3. The question of the Mother filing WP No.4280 of 2024 being aggrieved by an order on an application which has been withdrawn would not arise. Thus, on this ground also WP No.4280 of 2024 is required to be dismissed. 6.4. Insofar as the HSR property is concerned, he submitted that the gift deed was executed in the year 2006 out of love and affection of the Mother in favour of the Son. There are no conditions which are attached to the said gift deed. It was therefore, required for the Assistant Commissioner to have dismissed the said application since the gift deed being unconditional one, no relief could have been granted of holding the said gift deed to be null and void as sought for by his Mother. 6.5. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Court in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi & Another reported in (2022) SCCOnline SC 1684 more particularly para 12, 13, 14 and 15 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 12. 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; and b. the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor. 13. 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; and b. the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Careful perusal of the Petition under Section 23 filed by respondent no.1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of respondent no.1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to respondent no.1. Even in the impugned order dated 22nd May 2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply was filed by the appellant that the Petition was fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor – senior Citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by respondent no.1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition. 6.6. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor – senior Citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by respondent no.1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition. 6.6. By relying on Sudesh Chhikara's case, he submits that the transfer by gift or otherwise must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs and it is only if the transferee fails to provide such amenities, then could a proceeding under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act be filed. The transfer if made out of love and affection and there being no condition an application under Section 23 is not maintainable. 6.7. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi reported in (2022) 8 SCC 90 more particularly para 31 and 32 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 31 . Section 12 of the D.V. Act states that an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the D.V. Act. The proviso, however, states that before passing any order on such an application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any Domestic Incident Report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider. The expression 'aggrieved person' as defined Under Section 2(a) means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the Respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the Respondent. Domestic relationship as defined in Section 2(f), means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Domestic violence has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 3. 32 . Domestic violence has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 3. 32 . The expression 'shared household' in relation to the definition of domestic relationship as per the definition in Section 2(s) means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the Respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the Respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the Respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the Respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the Respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. The definition of shared household is thus an inclusive one. 6.8. By referring to Prabha Tyagi's case, he submits that the Mother has an alternative efficacy remedy under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and as such, an application under the Senior Citizens Act is not maintainable. 6.9. Again, by referring to Prabha Tyagi's case , he submitted that the daughter-in-law cannot be thrown out of the house. The said house being the matrimonial house amounting to be a shared household, the daughter-in-law would be entitled to continue to stay in the said house. 6.10. At this stage, on enquiry as to whether the Son would also be staying along with the daughter- in-law in the household, if this contention were to be accepted, he submits that since the daughter-in-law will be living in the shared household, the Son would also be entitled to live in the same shared household and as such, both the Son and the daughter-in-law cannot be made to vacate the Malakshmipuram property. 6.11. He relies upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court the case of Sri.Vivek Jain vs. The Deputy Commissioner & others in WP No.14704 of 2021, dated 04.06.2024 more particularly para 10 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi has held as follows: CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 11. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi has held as follows: CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 11. 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 purposes 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. 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 added) 12. 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”. 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; and 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. 13. 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. 14. Careful perusal of the Petition under Section 23 filed by respondent no.1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of respondent no.1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to respondent no.1. Even in the impugned order dated 22nd May 2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply was filed by the appellant that the Petition was fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor – senior Citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by respondent no.1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor – senior Citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by respondent no.1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition. it is not even pleaded by respondent no. 1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition." (Emphasis supplied) Following the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of NANJAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA2 has held as follows: 18. On careful reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that all kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the expression 'by way of gift or otherwise' so as to attract the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 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; and W.A.No.573 of 2022 Decided on 17-03-2023 b) The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor. 19. If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal action, 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. 20. Though a specific contention is urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that in view of the scope and object of the Senior Citizens Act, it is deemed 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 made by him would be null and void, it is an undisputed fact that 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. 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 of the Senior Citizens Act are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal. 21. In the present case, on careful perusal of the document executed by the appellant in favour of the 3rd Respondent, who happens to be the brother of the appellant, it does not contain any stipulation that the 3rd Respondent is under the obligation to maintain the present appellant. In the absence of the same and in view of the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, the transaction could be declared as null and void provided the same contains the stipulation that the transferee shall maintain the senior Citizen and the aforesaid Gift Deed does not contain any such stipulation, in the absence of any condition stipulated in the documents provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act are not attracted. 20. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi reported in LAWS (SC) 2022-12-17 wherein at paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 it is held as under: “12. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of transfers as in 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; and 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. 13. 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. 13. 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. 14. Careful perusal of the Petition under Section 23 filed by respondent no. 1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of respondent no.1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to respondent no. 1. Even in the impugned order dated 22nd May 2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply was filed by the appellant that the Petition was fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor - senior Citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by respondent no. 1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition." 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by respondent no. 1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition." 23. Though in the present case, a specific contention is being taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that, the appellant being the absolute onwer of the property in question, out of love and affection executed a Gift in favour of his brother/respondent No.3 under a Gift deed, dated 23.2.2018, with a ray of hope that the 3 rd Respondent/brother would take care of basic needs of medical necessities as his Son was not keeping well and his daughter was settled with her husband, but respondent No.3 has changed attitude towards him and has failed to show even love and affection towards him. The fact remains that, on the application filed by the appellant against respondent No.3, the Assistant Commissioner, who is the authority under the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act has allowed the application filed by the present appellant ignoring the conditions stipulated under the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Senior Citizens Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereby, the learned single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition. In identical circumstances, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Subhashini-vs District Collector, Kozhikode reported in LAWS (KER)-2000-9-81 at paragraph-52 has held as under "52. We conclude by answering the reference, that the condition as required under Section 23(1) for provision of basic amenities and basic physical needs to a senior citizen has to be expressly stated in the document of transfer, which transfer can only be one by way of gift or which partakes the character of gift or a similar gratuitous transfer. It is the jurisdictional fact, which the Tribunal will have to look into before invoking Section 23(1) and proceeding on a summary enquiry. We answer the reference agreeing with the decision in W.A. No. 2012 of 2012 dated 28.11.2012 [Malukutty Ponnarassery v. P. Rajan Ponnarassery). We find Shabeen Martin v. Muriel [ 2016 (5) KHC 603 ) and Sundhari v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2018 KHC 4655(2013) 3 KLT 1082) to be wrongly decided. We answer the reference agreeing with the decision in W.A. No. 2012 of 2012 dated 28.11.2012 [Malukutty Ponnarassery v. P. Rajan Ponnarassery). We find Shabeen Martin v. Muriel [ 2016 (5) KHC 603 ) and Sundhari v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2018 KHC 4655(2013) 3 KLT 1082) to be wrongly decided. We approve Radhamani v. State of Kerala [ 2016 (1) KHC 9 ] which had a recital in the document akin to that required under Section 23(1)." 24. On careful reading of the contents of the Gift Deed, dated 23.2.2012, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is in consonance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 , as the Gift Deed, dated 23.2.2011, does not contain any stipulation that respondent No.3 is under obligation to maintain the present appellant. In the absence of the same, it cannot be held that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. 25. Though our conscious is in favour of the welfare of the Senior Citizens considering the scope and object of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 , but our hands are tied in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara, wherein while interpreting the very provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the said Act, it has been held that the two conditions must be stipulated in the document, which is binding on all including this Court as contemplated under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 26. The judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant are not applicable the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in view of the latest dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered on 6th December 2022 in the case of Sudesh Chhikara-vs-Kamthi Devi reported in LAWS(SC) 2022- 12-17. 27. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present Intra Court Appeal is answered in the negative holding that the appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order, dated 26.2.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.52010/2016. 27. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present Intra Court Appeal is answered in the negative holding that the appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order, dated 26.2.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.52010/2016. (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court and that of the Division Bench of this Court what would unmistakably emerge is, the Assistant Commissioner could not have annulled the gift deed, unless the condition that is observed by the Apex Court in RAMTI DEVI is fulfilled in a gift deed. 6.12. He submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court took into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudesh Chikkara's case, and has come to a conclusion that without a condition being imposed in the gift deed, no such condition can be presumed nor can the said sale deed be declared to be null and void. 6.13. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Samtola Devi vs. Sate of Uttar Pradesh & Ors in SLP No.26651 of 2023 dated 27.03.2025, more particularly para 30, 31, 32 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 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 or the property 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 extend 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 OPPO Reno8 Tr5 Gremises owned or belonging to such a senior person. 31. The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of OPPO Reno8 Tr5 Gremises 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 & 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 had 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. In our opinion, the Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in ordering for his eviction merely for the reason that the property belongs to Kallu Mal, completely ignoring the fact that the claim of Krishna Kumar regarding 1/6th share and the cancellation of gifts and sale deeds is pending adjudication before the civil Court. 6.14. By referring to Samtola Devi's case , he submits that the provision of the Senior Citizen Act does not provide for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to a senior citizen. It is if the requirements of the decision in (2021) 15 SCC 730 were satisfied that the Tribunal may order eviction, if necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of senior Citizen. Thus, he submits that the Tribunal may order eviction, it is not necessary to order eviction. 6.15. It is if the requirements of the decision in (2021) 15 SCC 730 were satisfied that the Tribunal may order eviction, if necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of senior Citizen. Thus, he submits that the Tribunal may order eviction, it is not necessary to order eviction. 6.15. In the present facts and circumstances, no such eviction could be ordered and it is for that reason that the Tribunal has directed the Son and daughter to accommodate the Mother in the house which they are willing to do so and in this regard an affidavit has been filed by the Son and daughter-in-law on 25.1.2022, wherein they have category stated the house is a duplex house having ground and first floor, the ground floor consists of one room with attached bath, one hall, one common bath, kitchen, pooja room and garage and the first floor consists of two bedrooms, one with attached bath, one study room and sit out, the study room can be converted into a kitchen there would be a staircase provided from the outside to the first floor and as such, the Mother and father could stay in the ground floor. The Son and daughter-in-law along with their children would stay in the first floor and that the Son would also take care of the health emergencies of the Mother and father. 6.16. His submission is also by relying on the very same affidavit that both the Mother and father were tested positive for COVID and it is the Son who lookafter them. He therefore submits that if the arrangement as undertaken in the affidavit were to be accepted in terms of decision in Samtola Devi's case , there would be no reason to evict the Son and daughter-in- law from the premises. 6.17. He therefore submits that if the arrangement as undertaken in the affidavit were to be accepted in terms of decision in Samtola Devi's case , there would be no reason to evict the Son and daughter-in- law from the premises. 6.17. He relies upon the decision in Sri.P.Gopal vs. The State of Karnataka & Orthers in WP No.44175 of 2016 dated 5.10.2021, more particularly para 3A and 3B thereof, which are reproduced hereunder reference; a) Fourth Respondent had transferred the subject property by a registered Gift Deed dated 22.08.2005 in favour of the fifth Respondent who is none other than her daughter; this donee of the property sold it to the petitioner vide registered Sale Deed dated 26.08.2014; apparently, petitioner is a bonafide transferee for value; thus, he was a necessary & proper party to the proceedings under the 2007 Act before the authorities below; in his absence, the impugned order dated 16.07.2015 could not have been made by the Assistant Commissioner; for the same reason, petitioner's appeal ought to have been allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, however, the appeal was wrongly rejected vide order dated 21.07.2016: thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the impa orders warranting their invalidation. b) The fourth respondent Mother had transferred the subject property in favour of the fifth respondent daughter by a registered Gift Deed dated 22.08.2005; apparently, this transfer happened long before the 2007 Act came into force; Section 23(1) reads as under: "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. It leaves no manner of doubt as to the text of this Section not enclasping the pre-enactment transactions; contention of the respondents that the property was later transferred to petitioner and by that time, the Act was at place is a ridiculous argument; the focal point of Section 23(1) is the date of a first transaction in this case; if both the transactions had happened after the Act came into force, that amely, the transaction being post- enactment, is lacking in this case; thus, the impugned orders are liable to be voided; this view is supported by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in HARVINDER KAUR BAWA / THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANCHKULA AND ORS in CWP.No.17482/2015 disposed of on 17.10.2016. 6.18. By relying on P.Gopal's case he submits that the gift having been executed prior to the act of 2007 coming into force, the gift being a pre-enactment transaction Section 23 would not be applicable to the said gift. 6.19. He relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 16.11.2021 in Smt.C.Kamalamma vs. Sri.P.Gopal & Ors, in WA No.1170 of 2021, more particularly para 7 thereof, which is reproduced herein for easy reference; 7. In the present case on hand, the appellantes phed the property inson under registered dated 22.08.2005 much prior to the commencement of the Are and therefore, all transactions which are pre-enactrient are saved and therefore, the respondent No.4/Assistant Commissioner had no authority to entertain the Petition filed by the appellant herein. Even ottierwise, we are of the view that the appellant, cannot pursue two parallel remedies on the same cause of action. It is not in dispute that the appellant has already approached the competent civil Court seeking relief of declaration and has challenged the registered gift deed and also consequent sale deed executed by the respondent No.5. All these significant details are examined by the learned Single Judge. 6.20. By relying on C.Kamalamma's case , he again submits that the gift in that case also had been executed on 22.08.2005 prior to the Act of 2007 coming into force, the transaction being pre-enactment, the Assisatant Commissioner would not have any authority to entertain the Petition. 6.21. All these significant details are examined by the learned Single Judge. 6.20. By relying on C.Kamalamma's case , he again submits that the gift in that case also had been executed on 22.08.2005 prior to the Act of 2007 coming into force, the transaction being pre-enactment, the Assisatant Commissioner would not have any authority to entertain the Petition. 6.21. On the above grounds, he submits that WP No. 4280 of 2024 is required to be dismissed, WP No. 11886 of 2021 insofar as a direction setting aside the gift deed as null and void, is required to be quashed. 6.22. As regards accommodation to be provided in Mahalakshmipuram property, he submits that the Son and daughter-in-law are ready to provide the same, as per the affidavit indicated ( supra ). 7. Heard Sri.Jaykumar S. Patill., learned Senior counsel for the Mother and Sri.R.padmanabha., learned counsel for Son and daughter-in-law. Perused papers. 8. The points that would arise for consideration are; 1. Would the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which came into force on 29.12.2007 would apply to a gift deed executed before the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 came into force? 2. Is the appeal filed by the Son and daughter- in-law in WP No.11886 of 2021 maintainable without having exhausted the alternative efficacious remedy under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? 3. Is WP No.4280 of 2024 filed by the Mother maintainable without exhausting the alternative efficacious remedy under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? 4. Can this Court exercise its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to consider WP No.4280 of 2024, despite the same having been filed without exhausting the remedy under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? 5. Does the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 29.01.2020 require any interference? 6. What order? 9. I answer the above points as under; 10. Answer to point No.1: Would the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which came into force on 29.12.2007 would apply to a gift deed executed before the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 came into force? 10.1. This issue is no longer res integra. I answer the above points as under; 10. Answer to point No.1: Would the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which came into force on 29.12.2007 would apply to a gift deed executed before the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 came into force? 10.1. This issue is no longer res integra. A single judge of this Court in P. Gopal's case had categorically held that the gift deed executed on 22.08.2005 prior to the coming into force of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 would not be governed by the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 . 10.2. The said decision having been taken on appeal in WA No.1170 of 2021, the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the judgment of the single bench and categorically came to the conclusion that all transactions which are pre-enactment are saved and therefore the Assistant Commissioner would have no authority to entertain the Petition filed by a senior citizen. 10.3. There is no other decision to the contrary which has been brought to the notice of this Court, the respective counsels submit that there is no decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court on this issue. 10.4. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.1 by holding that any transaction envisaged under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 if executed prior to coming into force of the Senior Citizens Act cannot be challenged under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the only remedy which is available for any aggrieved party is to file appropriate suit before the appropriate Civil Court. 11. Answer to point No.2; Is the appeal filed by the Son and daughter-in-law in WP No.11886 of 2021 maintainable without having exhausted the alternative efficacious remedy under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? 11.1. What has been challenged in WP No.11886 of 2021 is an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the Son and daughter-in-law, had not filed an appeal under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act. 11.2. 11.1. What has been challenged in WP No.11886 of 2021 is an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the Son and daughter-in-law, had not filed an appeal under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act. 11.2. Though there are several orders of the single benches of this Court holding that even a person other than a senior citizen could file an appeal under Section 16 , what holds the Court now is the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WA No.1170/2021 dated 16.11.2021 in Smt.C.Kamalamma vs. Sri.P.Gopal & Ors wherein it has been categorically held that an appeal under Section 16 being a statutory remedy can only be availed by a senior citizen and/or a parent and not by anyone else. The Son and daughter-in- law in the present case are neither the senior Citizen nor parent, and as such, they cannot file an appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 . 11.3. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.2 by holding that there being no appellate remedy available for the Son and daughter-in-law, the only remedy available is a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 and as such, I am of the considered opinion that WP No.11886 of 2021 filed by the Son and daughter-in-law are maintainable. 12. Answer to points No.3: Is WP No.4280 of 2024 filed by the Mother maintainable without exhausting the alternative efficacious remedy under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? And Answer to points No. 4: Can this Court exercise its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to consider WP No.4280 of 2024, despite the same having been filed without exhausting the remedy under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? 12.1. Both the above points are related to each other and are taken up for consideration together. 12.2. In terms of the decision of the division bench of this Court in WA No.1170 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021 in Smt.C.Kamalamma vs. Sri.P.Gopal & Ors , this Court has held that an appeal by a person other than the senior Citizen or parent is not maintainable under Section 16. 12.3. 12.2. In terms of the decision of the division bench of this Court in WA No.1170 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021 in Smt.C.Kamalamma vs. Sri.P.Gopal & Ors , this Court has held that an appeal by a person other than the senior Citizen or parent is not maintainable under Section 16. 12.3. In the circumstances of the present matter where a single order has been passed by the Tribunal, the senior citizens/parent being aggrieved would be required to file an appeal under Section 16. However, insofar as the, Son or daughter or the like against whom the said proceedings under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act was filed, if they are aggrieved they would have to file a writ petition under Article 226/227. Thus, as rightly contended by Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil., learned Senior counsel the same would result in duality of proceedings, one being an appeal under Section 16 filed by a senior citizen/parent before the Deputy Commissioner insofar as the aspect of the order as regards which the senior citizen/parent is aggrieved of and the other before this Court filed by a person other than a senior citizen/parent since such person namely the Son//Daughter, daughter-in-law/Son-in-law or the like would not be entitled to file an appeal under Section 16 of the senior Citizen so on so act, if they were themselves not a senior citizen. 12.4. When two such proceedings are filed before two different fora and/or prosecuted by the parties before two different foras. It could also happen that there could be two different findings, which are rendered by the two different forums. However, it could also happen that it could be the same finding is rendered by both the forums. 12.5. Be that as it may, even the possibility of a different finding being rendered by two different foras would have to be considered by this Court in all seriousness that it deserves. Of course, it would also be for the legislature to look into this anomaly and rectify the same. What would be required of this Court to do is to implement the law “as is” considering the rival submissions. 12.6. In answer to point No.2, I have already come to a conclusion that WP No.11886 of 2021 filed by Son and daughter-in-law would be maintainable insofar as the Son and daughter-in-law being aggrieved by the impugned order. 12.7. The impugned order consists of two portions. 12.6. In answer to point No.2, I have already come to a conclusion that WP No.11886 of 2021 filed by Son and daughter-in-law would be maintainable insofar as the Son and daughter-in-law being aggrieved by the impugned order. 12.7. The impugned order consists of two portions. The first portion as regards the declaration of the gift deed as regards the HSR property being null and void. The second portion, as regards the direction of the Assistant Commissioner to provide accommodation to the Mother and father in the Mahalakshmipurum property of which the Mother is the exclusive owner. 12.8. Holistically speaking, an appeal filed by a senior citizen or parent under Section 16 would be maintainable. However, no appeal filed by the Son or daughter or daughter-in-law or son-in- law would be maintainable challenging the very same order of the Assistant Commissioner be maintainable before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 16. Thus the Son, daughter, daughter-in-law, son-in-law would have to file a writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction as well as supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, whereas the senior citizen/parent, the Mother in this case could file an appeal under Section 16 of the Act. 12.9. As referred to Supra, there is a possibility of conflicting decisions being passed by two different foras as regards the very same subject matter and as regards the very same facts. Thus, in my considered opinion, if it is only the senior citizen/parent who is aggrieved by the order, then such senior citizen/parent could file an appeal under Section 16 of the Act. If it is only the Son, daughter, daughter-in-law, son- in-law or a third party, where to be aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, then the only remedy available for such person is to approach this Court and Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This being the straitjacket remedy available, when it is only one set of persons who can be said to be aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 12.10. The present case is a peculiar one, inasmuch as from the very same order, both the Son and daughter-in-law on the one hand are aggrieved, on the other hand the Mother is also aggrieved by the very same order. Thus, resulting in both of them having approached this Court by way of writ petitions. 12.11. 12.10. The present case is a peculiar one, inasmuch as from the very same order, both the Son and daughter-in-law on the one hand are aggrieved, on the other hand the Mother is also aggrieved by the very same order. Thus, resulting in both of them having approached this Court by way of writ petitions. 12.11. Though normally, when an alternative efficacious remedy is available this Court would relegate a person who has approached this Court to such an alternative efficacious remedy, namely the Mother in this case to an appeal under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act. 12.12. I am of the considered opinion that doing so in the present case would firstly result in a separate order being passed in a writ petition filed by a son and daughter-in-law and a separate order being passed by a Deputy Commissioner in appeal under Section 16, which order of the Deputy Commissioner could also be challenged before this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 12.13. The entertainment of the present writ petition, dehors the alternative efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 16, available to the Mother, would deprive the Mother on the one hand or the son/daughter-in-law on the other hand, of one more challenge by way of a writ petition before this Court. However, as observed supra, if there is a possibility of a conflicting opinion being rendered by this Court on the one hand, and the Deputy Commissioner on the other hand this Court would be required to do everything within its powers to avoid such conflicting decisions being passed. 12.14. In the peculiarity of the present matter, taking into consideration that both the senior citizen/parent is aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, as also the Son and daughter-in-law are aggrieved by the very same order. The writ petitions which have been filed by both of them could be entertained by this Court and both the writ petitions taken up for disposal together. 12.15. As such, I answer point No.3 and 4 by holding that 12.15.1. Normally, if a senior citizen/parent is aggrieved by an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the remedy available is an appeal under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act. 12.15.2. 12.15. As such, I answer point No.3 and 4 by holding that 12.15.1. Normally, if a senior citizen/parent is aggrieved by an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the remedy available is an appeal under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act. 12.15.2. If a Son, daughter, daughter-in-law, son- in-law or a third party who is not a senior citizen/parent is aggrieved by an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the remedy of an appeal under Section 16 of the Senior Citizen Act is not available to them, unless the person challenging the order is a Senior Citizen, they would have to approach this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 12.15.3. If both the senior Citizen or parent, as also the Son, daughter, daughter-in-law, son-in-law or a third party, who is not a senior citizen or a parent, are aggrieved by an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and both of them were to file writ petitions before this Court both the writ petitions would have to be considered together and a common order be passed so as to avoid conflicting decisions. 12.15.4. This situation can only be addressed and or rectified by the Parliament. Hence, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Hon’ble Law Commission of India, with a request to look into this issue and take such action as deemed fit by the Hon’ble Law Commission of India. 13. Answer to point No.5: Does the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 29.01.2020 require any interference? 13.1. As indicated supra, the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner comprises of two parts. (1) Where a gift deed executed as regards to HSR property executed on 18.03.2006 prior to coming into force of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on 29.12.2007 has been declared to be null and void. (2) A direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner directing the Son and daughter-in-law to provide accommodation for the Mother in the Malakshmipuram property. 13.2. Insofar as the gift deed relating to HSR property is concerned, in my answer to point No.1, I have clearly and categorically come to a conclusion that the Senior Citizen Act will not be applicable to a transaction mentioned in Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act executed prior to the Act coming into force. 13.2. Insofar as the gift deed relating to HSR property is concerned, in my answer to point No.1, I have clearly and categorically come to a conclusion that the Senior Citizen Act will not be applicable to a transaction mentioned in Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act executed prior to the Act coming into force. Thus, insofar as the first portion of the order of the Assistant Commissioner is concerned, the same would have to be set aside since the Assistant Commissioner has not considered this aspect. 13.3. Insofar as the second portion of the order is concerned, it is the senior citizen/parent who is before this Court. The facts as regards this is not clear, inasmuch as the Assistant Commissioner in the impugned order at para 1, has stated as under; 1. The petitioner earlier had filed the Petition seeking relief to direct respondents to handover to her the property bearing municipal corporation No.149 carved out of Sy.Nos.184, 185, 186 and 38 of Laggere Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, formed by Karnataka Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., situated at Karnataka Layout, 1" Cross, WOC Road 2nd stage, Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru, (Herein after referred to as Subjected property) however during the course of proceedings, the petitioner has prayed to cancel the above said property from the Petition. … Emphasis supplied by me 13.4. A perusal of the above para 1 would indicate that the petitioner had filed a petition seeking relief to direct the Respondent – Son and Daughter-in law to hand over to her the Malakshmipuram property. However, during the course of proceeding, the petitioner has prayed to cancel the above said property from the Petition. If that be so, the question of any order being passed in respect of the Malakshmipuram property would not arise, since the said property, even as per the Assistant Commissioner has been cancelled from the Petition. The ORDER In the light of this observation the Tribunal opines that the respondent son has failed in this, as so the gift deed dated 18.03.2006 registered as Doc No.BAS-1-20055/2005-06, in Book I and stored in CD No.BASD228 in the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk is held as null and void, further that the direct that, the petitioner shall be accommodated in subjected property within 30 days from the date of this order by this the Petition is hereby allowed. 13.5. 13.5. The direction issued is for the petitioner to be accommodated in the subject property within 30 days from the date of the order. The subject property is detailed in para 2 of the order, which reads as under; 2. Later the petitioner has filed Petition under Section 4 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 to declare the gift deed dated 18.03.2006 registered as Doc No.BAS-1- 20055/2005-06, in Book I and stored in CD No.BASD228 in the office of the Senior Sub- Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk (subject property) executed by her in favour of Respondent in respect of property bearing site No.988, situated at Hosur Sarjapura Road Layout, Sector 7, Bengaluru, measuring east to west 9.14 mtrs and north to South 12.19 mtrs, as null and void and also to pass such other order/s which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of equity and justice. 13.6. A perusal of the above would indicate that the subject property is the HSR property. Admittedly, there is no construction which has been put up in the HSR property. The said property continues to be a vacant property and was subject matter of the gift deed dated 18.03.2006 which has been dealt with above. 13.7. Without reference to my answer to point No.1, if the order of the Assistant Commissioner were to be looked at by itself, then what the Assistant Commissioner has done is to declare the gift deed dated 18.03.2006 as regards the subject property to be null and void and has directed the Mother to be accommodated in the subject property within 30 days. 13.8. Thus, this direction does not in any manner relate to the Mahalakshmipuram property as contended by the Son and daughter-in-law in WP No.11886 of 2021 or by the Mother in WP No.4280 of 2024. 13.9. The original records pertaining to the proceedings were also secured through the Additional Government Advocate. The same indicates that on 07.03.2019, an application had been filed by the Mother wherein the following reliefs has been sought for: “Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to direct the respondents to hand over the property forthwith in the interest and equity” 13.10. The schedule property described therein was the Mahalakshmipuram property. The same indicates that on 07.03.2019, an application had been filed by the Mother wherein the following reliefs has been sought for: “Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to direct the respondents to hand over the property forthwith in the interest and equity” 13.10. The schedule property described therein was the Mahalakshmipuram property. There is no relief which had been sought for in the said proceeding as regards the gift deed or the property subject matter of the gift deed i.e., HSR Property. 13.11. On 03.07.2019, one more application under Section 4 and 23 of the Senior Citizen Act was filed by the Mother, wherein the relief which had been sought for was “Wherefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to direct the respondents to reconvey the scheduled property forthwith in the interest of justice and equity”. 13.12. The scheduled property described therein was the HSR layout property, and in this application, allegations had been made as regards the false, promises on which basis the gift deed had been executed. 13.13. Thus the application which had been filed on 07.03.2019 was as regards the handover of the Malakshmipuram property, which stands in the name of the Mother, as regards which no gift deed has been executed, and the same is in possession of the Son and daughter-in-law. 13.14. The application filed on 03.07.2019 is as regards the reconveying of the HSR property by challenging the gift deed executed in favor of the Son by the Mother on 18.03.2006. Both these applications were filed at different points in time and relate to different aspects. 13.15. The order sheet which has been maintained in the said proceedings, notes the filing of the Petition on 07.03.2019 and on 19.03.2019 notice was issued. On 03.07.2019 there is a noting made of the second application being filed. However, no notice had been issued thereon. On 20.11.2019, objections were filed and on that day, it is noted, “petitioner prays to cancel scheduled property mentioned in Petition. R1 states that he is ready to take care of his Mother, but petitioner is not ready to go and stay with them as her daughter-in-law is ill-treating petitioner, petitioner wants to get back her property and house. Hence, Mother prays for orders”. 13.16. R1 states that he is ready to take care of his Mother, but petitioner is not ready to go and stay with them as her daughter-in-law is ill-treating petitioner, petitioner wants to get back her property and house. Hence, Mother prays for orders”. 13.16. It is this statement of petitioner praying to cancel the scheduled property mentioned in the Petition which is mentioned in the impugned order at para 1. 13.17. This reproduction by the Assistant Commissioner is contrary to the further recordal in the order sheet dated 20.11.2019 in as much as the Assistant Commissioner has categorically observed that petitioner wants to get back her property and house, the property being the HSR layout property and the house being the Malakshmipuram property. Hence the reference to cancellation in para 1 of the impugned order can only refer to cancellation sought for by the petitioner of the gift deed and not cancellation of the property from the Petition as recorded by the Assistant Commissioner which is now sought to be taken advantage of by the Son and daughter-in-law. 13.18. Be that as it may notice had been issued to the Son and daughter-in-law only as regards the application filed on 07.03.2019 and no notice had been issued as regard the application filed on 03.07.2019. Thus depriving the Son and daughter-in-law of their right to file their objections to the application filed on 03.07.2019. 13.19. Be that as it may, the same has been contested and I have come to a conclusion that the gift deed executed in respect of the property subject matter of the application on 03.07.2019 being prior in point of time, then the coming into force of the Senior Citizen Act, no such relief was maintainable before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 23. 13.20. As regards the original prayer sought for in the application dated 07.03.2019, the Assistant Commissioner has wrongly come to a conclusion that the petitioner has prayed to cancel the above property from the Petition have not been considered properly and the final declaration the final direction which has been issued is to accommodate the petitioner in the subject property within 30 days which subject property refers to the HSR layout property. 13.21. 13.21. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the matter would have to be remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner for consideration of all these aspects relating to the Mahalakshmipuram property keeping all the contentions open as regards the said property, it is for this reason that the contentions urged in relation to the same are not dealt with in the present order, lest it cause any prejudice to the case of the respective parties. The Tribunal would have to independently consider this aspect and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, this court has not expressed any opinion on the same. 13.22. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the Assistant Commissioner comprising of two different portions the aspect relating to the declaration of the gift deed dated 18.03.2006 being null and void would be required to be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration as regards the original application filed on 07.03.2019 relating to Mahalakshmipuram property. 14. Answer to point No.5: What order? 14.1. In view of my answers to points No.1 to 3, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition in WP No.11886 of 2021 is partly allowed. ii. The order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub- Division on 29.01.2020 in MSC CR 106/2018-19 insofar as the gift deed dated 18.03.2006 declaring it to be null and void is set aside, liberty is however reserved to the Senior Citizen/Mother to challenge the same in an appropriately instituted suit. iii. The further direction that the mother shall be accommodated in the subject property within 30 days from the date of the order is also set aside. iv. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration to the Assistant Commissioner insofar as the Mahalakshmipuram property is concerned as per the application filed by the Mother on 03.07.2019. v. Writ petition in WP No.4280 of 2024 is also partly allowed. vi. The remittal of the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration as directed above would answer the grievance of the Mother, raised in WP No.4280 of 2024. vii. Since order is passed in the presence of both counsels, both parties shall appear before the Assistant Commissioner without the requirement of any further notice on 16.6.2025. viii. vi. The remittal of the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration as directed above would answer the grievance of the Mother, raised in WP No.4280 of 2024. vii. Since order is passed in the presence of both counsels, both parties shall appear before the Assistant Commissioner without the requirement of any further notice on 16.6.2025. viii. The Assistant Commissioner shall proceed with the matter by providing an opportunity to both parties to file such documents and pleadings on record as permissible, hearing both of them and passing necessary orders as expeditiously as possible. ix. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Hon’ble Law Commission of India, with a request to look into this issue and take such action as deemed fit by the Hon’ble Law Commission of India.