Pradeep Kumar Mittal vs District Magistrate, South East, Delhi & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
+ W.P.(C) 11503/2025, CM APPL. 47137/2025 & CM APPL.
50564/2025
Between:
PRADEEP KUMAR MITTAL
S/O SH. RAJENDRA KUMAR MITTAL
R/O D-50, UGF, G.K. ENCLAVE-II,
NEAR SAVITRI CINEMA, DELHI- 110048
.....PETITIONER
(Through: Mr. A. K. Panda, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N. D. Pancholi, Mr.
Deepak Mayur and Mr. Rajiv Jain, Advocates.)
Versus
1. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SOUTH EAST, DELHI
(APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE MAINTENANCE AND
WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007),
OLD GARGI BUILDING, LAJPAT NAGAR-IV, NEW DELHI-
110024
2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SOUTH-EAST,
DELHI
THE TRIBUNAL OF MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF
PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007, OLD GARGI
BUILDING, LAJPAT NAGAR-IV, NEW
DELHI-110024
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 1 of 15
3. RAJENDRA KUMAR MITTAL
S/O LATE SH. LACHHNI NARAIN MITTAL
RIO B-321, FIRST FLOOR, GREEN FIELD COLONY,
FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121010 .....RESPONDENTS
(Through: Mr. Shiven Varma (Panel Counsel, GNCTD) with Mr.
Rudraksh Mathur, Advocate.
Mr. Akshit Sachdeva and Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocates for R-3.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Reserved on: 20.05.2026
Pronounced on: 06.07.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G E M E N T
This petition has been filed by one of the sons of respondent no.3 against
order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the District Magistrate/ Appellate Authority
dismissing the petitioner‟s appeal against the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by
the Additional District Magistrate/ Maintenance Tribunal filed under Section
16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007
(„ Senior Citizen Act ‟) confirming the order of Maintenance Tribunal directing
the petitioner to return the amount of Rs. 7.15 crores which was allegedly
gifted to the petitioner by respondent no. 3 out of sale proceeds of an
immovable property.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The facts of the case would indicate that respondent no.3 is the father of
the petitioner. Respondent no.3 has two sons. The petitioner is the younger son,
whereas, one Mr. Rishi Kumar Mittal, is the elder son who is not a party to the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 2 of 15
proceedings. The dispute is, thus, between the younger son i.e. the petitioner
and his father i.e. respondent no.3 herein. Respondent no. 3 and his wife are
senior citizens and at the time of filing of the application under the provisions
of the Senior Citizen Act, they were aged about 82 years and 72 years
respectively.
3. It was the case of the father i.e. respondent no.3 that he got constructed a
property bearing House no. 207, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi. The said property
was sold and out of total consideration of Rs. 10,53,65,700/-, an amount of Rs.
7.15 crores was transferred to the petitioner by two cheques of the same date
i.e. 27.01.2017. The amount was transferred on an assurance by the petitioner
that he would take full care of his father and mother. Since the petitioner failed
to keep his promise in maintaining respondent no.3 and his wife, therefore, the
application was filed by respondent no.3 under Section 4 read with Section 23
of the Senior Citizen Act.
4. Vide order dated 31.03.2022, the Additional District Magistrate/
Maintenance Tribunal allowed the father‟s i.e. respondent no. 3 petition and
directed the petitioner, herein, to return the amount of Rs. 7.15 crores within
two months. Additionally, direction was also issued to pay certain amount
towards maintenance of the father and the mother.
5. The order dated 31.03.2022 was challenged by the petitioner before the
District Magistrate in an appeal. The District Magistrate had set aside the said
order to the extent of directing the petitioner to maintain respondent no.3, and
the matter was remanded back to the Additional District Magistrate/
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 3 of 15
Maintenance Tribunal to conduct a fresh proceedings considering all
documents and evidence placed on record.
6. Against the order of remand respondent no.3 had filed a writ petition
bearing no. W.P.(C) 5070/2023 before this Court which was also disposed of
vide order dated 03.12.2024 directing the Appellate Authority to decide the
appeal on merits afresh and the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Appellate
Authority was set aside. For the sake of clarity Paragraph no. 10 of the order
dated 03.12.2024 is extracted as under:
“ 10. In light of the above submissions and the peculiar facts of the case, the
present writ petition is disposed of with following directions:
st
(i) The impugned order dated 31 March, 2023 passed by Respondent
No. 1 - District Magistrate/ Appellate Authority, is set aside and the
matter is remanded back to them for fresh adjudication of the appeal
filed by Respondent No. 3 bearing case No. 503/2022, after hearing
all the parties and in accordance with law. Respondent No. 1
shalldecide the matter uninfluenced by any of the observation
previously made by them in the impugned order or the observations of
this Court in the instant order. It is clarified that jurisdictional
objections raised by Respondent No. 3, in terms of the maintainability
of the proceedings under the Act, shall also be dealt with by
Respondent No. 1.
(ii) As far as reliance on certain documents is concerned, it is made
clear that the parties shall be permitted to place reliance on the
documents which were placed on record before the Additional District
Magistrate originally or through applications which were not decided,
as well as the documents which were filed before the Appellate
Authority. However, no other documents shall be allowed to be filed
by either of parties.
(iii) The order of the Additional District Magistrate (South East)
st
dated 31 March, 2022, shall be kept in abeyance till such time the
appeal is finally decided by Respondent No. 1 - the Appellate
Authority.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 4 of 15
(iv) Respondent No. 3 shall continue to make the payments of INR
20,000/- towards the maintenance of the Petitioner, in terms of the
order dated 26th May, 2023, passed by this Court till the date of
adjudication of the appeal.
(v) The Appellate Authority 1s directed to decide the matter as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months
from today .”
7. In pursuance to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the District
Magistrate/ Appellate Authority vide the impugned order has dismissed the
petitioner‟s appeal while affirming the order passed by the Maintenance
Tribunal. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the instant petition.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES
8. At the outset, Mr. A. K. Panda, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that so far as the maintenance amount to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- per
month is concerned, the petitioner has no objection with respect to the same.
He is continuously paying the said amount and undertake to do the same. The
petitioner, however, assails the direction to return the Rs. 7.15 crores.
9. Mr. Panda also raises the jurisdictional objection on the ground that a
claim for return/ eviction of money/ property would fall outside the scope of
the Maintenance Tribunal. It is submitted that the provisions of Senior Citizen
Act are confined to maintenance of senior citizens who are unable to maintain
themselves and those provisions do not empower the Maintenance Tribunal to
adjudicate recovery of property or monetary disputes.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that the Maintenance Tribunal failed to
consider the provisions of Section 4 to 9 of the Senior Citizen Act and Rule
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 5 of 15
3(3)(i) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Rule, 2009 (“ Rules of 2009” ) which unequivocally restrict the Maintenance
Tribunal to pass any order of eviction or return of money etc. The reliance is
placed to definition of maintenance under Section 2(b) of the Senior Citizen
Act to state that “maintenance” includes provisions for food, clothing,
residence and medical attendance andtreatment.
11. It is argued that the proceedings were conducted without adhereing to the
prescribed procedure of recording evidence on oath. It is also submitted that
there is no proof of neglect, harassment or ill-treatment and in absence of there
being sufficient pleading and proof, the impugned order is wholly perverse.
12. Mr. Panda submits that with respect to matters of maintenance, the
competent authority is the Additional District Magistrate/ Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and the Appellate Authoirty would be District Magistrate, however,
matters regarding the eviction of property, movable or immovable, on account
of non-maintenance of ill-treatment, a senior citizen is required to approach the
Deputy Commissioner/ District Magistrate and any appeal, therefrom, would
lie before the Divisional Commissioner. Reliance is placed on a decision of
1
this Court in the case of Rakhi Sharma v. State and another decision passed
by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Pushpa Sharma v. State of West
2
Bengal and Shyam Sundar Sharma @ Bablu v. State of West Bengal .
13. Per Contra, Mr. Akshit Sachdeva, learned counsel for respondent no.3
has opposed the petition and has made various submissions. It is his submission
1
2021:DHC:855
2
WPANo.10504/2025
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 6 of 15
that there are concurrent findings of facts and two authorities have held against
the petitioner. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has a limited jurisdiction. It is submitted that the
impugned orders are well reasoned and speaking.
14. Mr. Sachdeva further submits that the petitioner does not have any right
to claim the amount of Rs. 7.15 crores as this amount was transferred only with
the condition that the petitioner would keep his parents and take care of their
basic needs and requirements for their lifetime including residence, medical
expenses etc. Since the gift of transfer to the amount was conditional, the
failure of the condition must result in return of the gift amount.
15. The definition of property under Section 2(f) of the Senior Citizen Act is
cited to argue that the property would means property of any kind, whether
movable or immovable, ancestral or self acquired, tangible or intangible and
includes rights or interests in such property. It is submitted that the jurisdiction
of the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Senior Citizen
Act has rightly been invoked and no interference is called for.
16. I have heard the parties and perused the record.
17. The short but seminal question which arises for consideration before this
Court is whether the proceedings culminating in the impugned orders,
involving an alleged transfer of property by a senior citizen and the
consequences flowing therefrom, were required to be adjudicated in accordance
with the statutory mechanism contemplated under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 or
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 7 of 15
whether the same could have been independently determined by the
Maintenance Tribunal.
18. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 22(3) of the Rules of
2009, which reads as under:-
“22. Action plan for the protection of life and property of senior citizen:
*
3(1)(i) A senior citizen/parents may make an application before the Deputy
Commissioner/District Magistrate of his district for eviction of his son and
daughter or legal heir from his property of any kind whether movable or
immovable, ancestral or self-acquired, tangible or intangible and include
rights or interests in such property on account of his non- maintenance and ill-
treatment.
(ii) The Deputy Commissioner/DM shall immediately forward such application
to the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrates for verification of the title of the
property and facts of the case within 15 days from the date of receipt of such
application.
(iii) The Sub Divisional Magistrate shall immediately submit its report to the
Deputy Commissioner/DM for final orders within 21 days from the date of
receipt of the complaint/application.
(iv) The Deputy Commissioner/DM during summary proceedings for the
protection of senior citizen parents shall consider all the relevant provisions of
the said Act 2007. If the Deputy Commissioner/DM is of opinion that any son
or daughter or legal heir of a senior citizen/parents is not maintaining the
senior citizen and ill treating him and yet is occupying the self acquired
property of the senior citizen, and that they should be evicted, the Deputy
Commissioner/DM shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in
writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause as to why an order of
eviction should not be issued against them/him/her…..”
19. A plain reading of Rule 22(3) would show that the same contemplates a
distinct statutory framework in matters concerning protection and restoration of
property of senior citizens on account of non-maintenance and ill-treatment.
Unlike proceedings under Chapter II of the Act which primarily deal with
maintenance, Rule 22(3) specifically addresses disputes where a senior citizen
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 8 of 15
seeks relief in respect of his property and the consequences arising from the
conduct of his children or legal heirs. Admittedly the money sought to be
recovered falls within the definition of Property under Section 2(f) of the
Senior Citizens Act.
20. What assumes significance is that Rule 22(3)(1)(i) specifically stipulates
that such proceedings are required to be initiated before the Deputy
Commissioner/District Magistrate. The Rule, however, does not merely
identify the competent authority. It proceeds to prescribe an elaborate
procedure to be followed before any final determination is rendered. Upon
receipt of the application, the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate is
required to forward the matter to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate for
verification of the title of the property and the facts of the case. The Sub-
Divisional Magistrate is, thereafter, required to submit a report to the Deputy
Commissioner/District Magistrate, who alone is empowered to take a final
decision.
21. The significance of the aforesaid mechanism lies in the conscious
separation between the process of factual inquiry and the process of
adjudication. While the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is entrusted with verification
of the factual assertions and the material placed by the parties, the ultimate
adjudicatory authority is vested in the Deputy Commissioner/District
Magistrate. The Rule, thus, incorporates an additional layer of scrutiny before
any final determination affecting the proprietary rights of a senior citizen is
rendered.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 9 of 15
22. It would also be relevant to refer to Rule 22(3)(4) of the Rules of 2009,
which reads as under:-
“(4) Appeal,-
(i) The appeal against the order of Dy. Commissioner/DM shall lie before
Divisional Commissioner, Delhi.
(ii) Provisions regarding disposal of appeal before Appellate Tribunal shall
apply mutatis mutandis to the appeals before the Divisional Commissioner,
Delhi.”
23. Rule 22(3)(4) assumes equal significance, inasmuch as, it provides that
an appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/District
Magistrate shall lie before the Divisional Commissioner. The Rules, thus,
contemplate a distinct appellate hierarchy in matters arising under Rule 22(3).
24. A conjoint reading of Rule 22(3)(1) and Rule 22(3)(4) demonstrates that
the Rules of 2009 envisage a self-contained mechanism in matters relating to
protection and restoration of property of senior citizens. The statutory scheme
contemplates factual verification by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
adjudication by the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate and appellate
scrutiny by the Divisional Commissioner. Such a framework is evidently
intended to ensure that disputes affecting valuable proprietary interests of
senior citizens are subjected to adequate scrutiny at multiple levels before
attaining finality.
25. This understanding also finds support from the decision of this Court in
3
Rakhi Sharma v. State & Ors. , wherein while considering Rule 22(3) and
Rule 22(3)(4) of the Rules of 2009, this Court recognised that the first forum in
matters of eviction and protection of property is the Deputy
3
W.P. 2985/2021; Dated 05.03.2021
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 10 of 15
Commissioner/District Magistrate and that a challenge to such orders would lie
before the Divisional Commissioner. The relevant observations read as under:-
“15. As per the above Rules, a senior citizen can approach the Deputy
Commissioner/DM seeking eviction of the son, daughter or any other legal heir
from his self-acquired property on account of his non-maintenance and ill-
treatment. The term 'self-acquired property' has been amended to
include'property of any kind', vide notification dated 28th July, 2017
numberedF.No.40(405)/AmendmentofRulesMAWPSC2007/DD(SS)/DSW/2015
16/1168411712. Thus, the senior citizen can approach the Deputy
Commissioner/DM for eviction from any property over which he/she enjoys
rights. The title of the senior citizen is checked. A report is submitted by the
concerned SDM after verifying both the title as also the facts pleaded. If the
Deputy Commissioner/DM is satisfied, then notice is issued to the
children/relatives whose eviction is sought and thereafter orders are passed.
16. Under Rule 22(3)(4), an appeal against the order of the Deputy
Commissioner/District Magistrate would lie before the Divisional
Commissioner, Delhi. Thus, in respect of eviction, the first forum would be
the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate. A challenge to the order of the
Deputy Commissioner/DM would lie before the Divisional Commissioner.”
26. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid provisions is that the Rules of
2009 carve out a complete statutory mechanism for adjudication of disputes
pertaining to the protection and restoration of property of senior citizens. The
Rule not only identifies the competent authority but also prescribes the manner
in which disputed questions of fact are to be examined before any final
determination is rendered.
27. The significance of the aforesaid framework becomes apparent in the
facts of the present case. The controversy herein is not confined to a claim of
maintenance simpliciter. The dispute revolves around the transfer of Rs.7.15
crores by the respondent-father to the petitioner-son, the circumstances in
which such transfer was effected, the nature of the understanding between the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 11 of 15
parties, the existence of any assurance or condition attached thereto and the
legal consequences allegedly flowing from the breach thereof. Determination of
these issues necessarily requires examination of disputed questions of fact and
appreciation of the surrounding circumstances in which the transaction came to
be entered into.
28. Significantly, Rule 22(3) specifically envisages that such factual disputes
would first be verified by the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who is
required to submit a report regarding the title and facts of the case. The final
decision is, thereafter, required to be taken by the Deputy
Commissioner/District Magistrate. The legislative design is, therefore, not
accidental. The rule-making authority has consciously separated the process of
factual inquiry from the process of adjudication. Such a mechanism provides an
additional safeguard before any final determination affecting valuable
proprietary rights is rendered.
29. Equally important is the appellate structure contemplated under Rule
22(3)(4), whereby an appeal lies before the Divisional Commissioner. Thus, the
statutory framework envisages scrutiny at three distinct stages, namely,
verification by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, adjudication by the Deputy
Commissioner/District Magistrate and appellate review by the Divisional
Commissioner. Such safeguards assume even greater significance where the
dispute concerns a substantial monetary transfer and contested factual
assertions relating to the nature and purpose of such transfer.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 12 of 15
30. This Court is conscious of the decision of the Division Bench in Sunny
4
Paul v. State & Ors. , However, paragraph 13 of the said judgment itself
records that Rule 22 was incorporated to give effect to Section 23 of the Act.
Far from diluting the significance of Rule 22, the Division Bench recognised
the close nexus between the substantive rights contemplated under Section 23
and the procedural mechanism prescribed under Rule 22.
31. The said decision, however, arose in an altogether different factual
backdrop. The controversy before the Division Bench was whether the
authorities functioning under the Senior Citizens Act possessed the power to
direct eviction of children from the property of senior citizens and whether such
jurisdiction could be exercised under the provisions of the Act. The Court was
not called upon to examine a dispute involving transfer of a substantial
monetary amount, determination of the nature and character of such transfer,
existence of conditions allegedly attached thereto and the consequential
question whether the same was liable to be restored.
32. The observations contained in Sunny Paul (supra) must, therefore, be
appreciated in the context of the issue which arose for consideration before the
Division Bench. The judgment cannot be read as dispensing with the statutory
framework expressly engrafted under Rule 22(3) nor can it be construed as
rendering the procedure prescribed therein otiose. On the contrary, once Rule
22 is recognised as a provision introduced to give effect to Section 23, the
procedural safeguards incorporated therein must receive their full meaning and
effect.
4
2018 SCC OnLine Del 11640
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 13 of 15
33. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the dispute pertains to
return of property, which includes money, the same requires adjudication of
contested factual issues. The procedure specifically contemplated under Rule
22(3) of Rules of 2009, thus, assumes relevance. The statutory framework
consciously entrusts factual verification to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, final
adjudication to the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate and appellate
scrutiny to the Divisional Commissioner. Adherence to such procedure not only
gives full effect to the legislative scheme but also better advances the object of
the enactment by ensuring that disputes concerning valuable rights of senior
citizens are adjudicated through the mechanism specifically devised by the
rule-making authority for that purpose.
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the dispute raised by respondent no.3, involving the alleged
transfer of Rs.7.15 crores and the consequences flowing therefrom, ought to
have been examined in accordance with the statutory framework contemplated
under Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 2009. The impugned orders, having been
rendered dehors the procedure specifically envisaged under the said Rules,
cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside.
35. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the concerned Deputy
Commissioner/District Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with
law. The Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate shall proceed in terms of
the mechanism contemplated under Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 2009.
36. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the rival claims and contentions of the parties.The proceedings shall be
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 14 of 15
decided independently and uninfluenced by any observations contained in the
impugned orders or in the present judgment except to the extent of the
conclusions rendered on the issue of the appropriate forum and procedure.
37. Since the petitioner has already undertaken to continue paying
maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month and has raised no challenge to
that part of the impugned orders, the said arrangement shall continue during the
pendency of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner/District
Magistrate, subject to any further orders that may be passed by the competent
authority in accordance with law.
38. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
(JUDGE)
JULY 6, 2026
SA
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:13:50
Page 15 of 15