The learned Single Judge came to the view that Section 23 of the Act gives ample authority to the Tribunal to declare transfer of the property as null and void to the circumstances mentioned in Sub-section (1) of section 23. It was also held that the writ petitioners having chosen to remain absent was indicative of the fact that they had no interest in hearing of the case. Hence, on both these grounds the writ petition was dismissed. Questioning the same, the instant appeal is filed. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants' counsel contends that the provisions of Section 22r/w Section 23 of the Act do not postulate any right to the authority to annul a deed of gift or otherwise. When there is absence of any condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs as stated therein, the exercise of power under Section 23 of the Act is beyond the scope of the said section. Therefore, the authority had no authority to pass the said order. The same is disputed by Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel appearing for the counsel representing the respondent. He contends that there is no error committed by the SDM in passing the impugned order. That two days prior to the execution of the gift deed, an affidavit was given by the writ petitioners dated 07.09.2019 to the effect that they will maintain the respondent. It is on that basis that the gift deed was executed. Since the writ petitioners have not maintained the respondent, the authority was justified in passing the order under Section 23 of the Act. He further pleads that this is an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence a writ appeal is not maintainable. HE relies on the Full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court reported in AIR 2022 Rajasthan 7 in the case of Mahendar Kumar Jain Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be dismissed. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants who contends that the power exercised by the Court is not under Article 227,