ORDER R.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order passed by the I Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, dated 27-7-1987 dismissing the revision and upholding the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, dated 4-5-1983 dismissing the application of the petitioner under S. 16(5) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 2. Brief facts of the case are that premises No. 7/54, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur of which respondents Nos. 3 to 8 are landlords, was initially in the tenancy of P.C. Paul, upon an application being moved by the landlords, respondents Nos. 3 to 8, that after the death of P.C., Paul his son Vijai Paul has acquired another accommodation in the same city and has started living in Swarup Nagar and consequently the premises in dispute situate in Tilak Nagar has fallen vacant which may be released in favour of the landlords the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after making due enquiry, ordered declaration of vacancy in respect of the premises in dispute on 17-4-976. Thereupon Roop Lal, the petitioner who is in occupation of the premises in dispute filed an objection that the vacancy has wrongly been declared in respect of the premises in dispute. Vijai Paul also joined in the objection claiming that the premises was initially in the tenancy of his father Sri P.G. Paul who acquired it for the residence of his employees and the petitioner Roop Lal, who was an employee, was living in the accommodation in that capacity and rent was being paid by Sri P.C. Paul and thereafter by Vijai Paul. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after going through the evidence on record, however, rejected the objection filed by the petitioner as well as by Vijai Paul, vide order dated 31-12-1976 holding that the tenancy was in the name of P.C. Paul and thereafter his son Vijai Paul but Vijai Paul having acquired another accommodation, it was rightly declared vacant and further that the petitioner was living simply as an employee of P.C. Paul and there was no contract of tenancy in the name of the petitioner and hence dismissed the objection. The petitioner thereupon filed an application under S. 14 of the Act claiming that he was in possession of the premises in dispute as a tenant and not as an employee of P.C. Paul and that the affidavit, dated 1-7-1976 alleged to be bearing his signatures and purporting to be his affidavit stating that he was living in the premises in dispute as an employee of P.C. Paul, was a fraudulent affidavit obtained with the collusion of Vijai Paul and that he was not in possession as an employee of P.C. Paul but was in possession as a tenant in the accommodation in dispute. This application filed by the petitioner under S. 14 of the Act for regularisation of his tenancy was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, vide his order-, dated 30-12-1977 holding that there is no evidence to show any contract of tenancy with the petitioner nor there is any rent receipt ever issued in the name of the petitioner and all the rent receipts were issued by the landlords in favour of Sri. P.C. Paul which clearly indicates that the petitioner was not in possession as a tenant. There was also no evidence to indicate that the petitioner was in possession of the premises in dispute with the consent of the landlords and hence in absence of any rent receipt, contract of tenancy or consent of the landlords, the petitioner's application under S. 14 of the Act was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, vide order, dated 30-12-1977. 3. The petitioner having failed in his attempt to prove his contract of tenancy, now filed an application under S. 16(5) of the Act on the ground that the premises in dispute was wrongly declared as vacant and he was in possession of the premises in dispute as a tenant and had been paying rent to the landlords since long but the rent receipts were being issued in the name of Sri P.C. Paul. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, however, rejected the application moved by the petitioner under S. 16(5) of the Act holding that there is no evidence on the record to show that any rent receipts were issued in the name of the petitioner or that there was any contract of tenancy with the landlord or even that the petitioner ever deposited any rent under section 30(1) of the Act. The petitioner having not even proved that he was occupying the premises with the consent of the landlords, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer disbelieved the case set up by the petitioner and rejected the application, vide his order, dated 4-5-1983. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner went up in revision before the 1st Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, who also dismissed the revision, vide his order dated 27-7-1987 which is in challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Heard Sri S.N. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Verma, Senior Counsel for the landlords, respondents Nos. 3 to 8. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S. N. Agarwal contended that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises in dispute since long with the consent of the landlord and had been paying the rent also though the rent receipts were issued in the name of P.C. Paul Hence the accommodation was wrongly declared as vacant and the same could not have been released in favour of the landlords. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was an employee of Sri P.C. Paul and since Vijai Paul, the son of Sri P.C.Paul, had already acquired another accommodation and living in Swarup Nagar, the accommodation has wrongly been declared vacant. The case of the petitioner is that the affidavit alleged to be that of the petitioner, dated 1-7-76 did not bear his signature and was a fraudulent affidavit relied upon by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and hence the orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are vitiated. On the other hand the learned Senior counsel Sri S.N. Verma submitted that the petitioner having failed in his attempt to retain possession of the accommodation in dispute as an employee of P.C. Paul, set up an alternative case of tenancy in his favour but having not produced any contract of tenancy, any rent receipt in his name or any" evidence to indicate that he was living in the premises in dispute with the consent of the landlords, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have rightly held that the petitioner has no right or title in the accommodation in dispute as a tenant thereof and the tenant having already shifted to another accommodation in the same city rightly declared it to be vacancy and being satisfied about the need of the landlords, they rightly released it in favour of the landlords. 6. A perusal of the order passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, dated 27-7-1987will clearly show that the petitioner had tried to set up his claim as a tenant of the accommodation in dispute and filed an application under S. 14 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer being not satisfied about his claim of tenancy in absence of any contract of tenancy, any rent receipt, any evidence to indicate that he was in occupation of the premises in dispute with the consent of the landlord, rejected the application moved by the petitioner for regularisation of his tenancy. The petitioner having failed in his attempt in proceedings under S. 14 of the Act, filed an application for review of the order under section 16(5) of the Act where also the Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the petitioner has not been able to produce any evidence of contract of tenancy or his occupation of the premises with the consent of the landlords and all the rent receipts having been issued only in favour of P.C. Paul and no receipt having been issued in favour of the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner claiming himself to be the tenant of the accommodation was rejected. Vijai Paul, who after the death of his father Sri P. C. Paul became the tenant of the accommodation, himself filed an application on 31-8-1976 that he does not wish to press his objection against the declaration of vacancy and release of the accommodation in favour of the landlords. In view of this application filed by the tenant himself, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the petitioner, who could not succeed in retaining the possession of the accommodation as an employee of Sri P.C. Paul and thereafter Vijai Paul and who could not produce any evidence in support of his alternative claim of tenancy also, has no right or title to retain the possession of the premises in dispute. In view thereof the premises in dispute was rightly declared vacant and released in favour of the landlords by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and I find no merits in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in possession of the accommodation in dispute with the consent of the landlords as tenant and hence the order declaring vacancy was vitiated. 7. So far as the other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was an employee of Sri P. C. Paul, it would be relevant to mention here that there was an affidavit filed by the petitioner, dated 1-7-1976 in which the petitioner is shown to have stated that he was living in the premises in dispute as an employee of P.C. Paul. Later on the petitioner denied his affidavit and produced an Expert in support of his case that the affidavit bearing the signature was not his signature. The landlords thereafter filed an application that the expert may be produced for cross- examination and the best evidence to determine whether the petitioner had sworn the affidavit or not would have been to produce the Oath Commissioner before whom the petitioner is said to have signed the affidavit but the petitioner having not produced the Oath Commissioner, the affidavit filed by him could not be challenged. It appears that the Handwriting Expert was not produced for cross-examination because the petitioner insisted that the cost should be paid by the landlords who wanted to cross- examine the witness while the landlords insisted that the costs of summoning the Handwriting Expert be borne by the petitioner. However, even if the alternative case of the petitioner is to be considered as to whether he was in possession as a tenant in the premises in dispute, it was necessary for the petitioner to have produced some cogent evidence in proof thereof. However, even if the alternative case of the petitioner is to be considered as to whether he was in possession as a tenant in the premises in dispute, it was necessary for the petitioner to have produced some cogent evidence in proof thereof. However, the petitioner having failed to produce any cogent evidence whatsoever and having not produced any rent receipt issued in his favour or any document of contract of tenancy in his favour or any evidence to indicate that he was in possession of the premises with the consent of the landlords, the petitioner was clearly a trespasser not entitled to retain possession of the same specially after Vijai Paul, the tenant himself, gave an application that he does not want to press his objection against the declaration of vacancy and release of the accommodation in favour of the landlords. 8. In the result, I find no manifest error having committed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur or by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. After appraising the evidence, they have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner could not produce any reliable evidence in support of his claim for tenancy of the accommodation in dispute and hence l uphold the order declaring vacancy and release of the accommodation in favour of the landlords. 9. There are no merits in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed with costs. 10. In the end when the judgment was being delivered, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed, that sometime may be allowed to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation and handover peaceful possession of the same to the landlords respondents Nos. 3 to 8. In case an undertaking is filed by the petitioner before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 2, within one month from today that the petitioner shall vacate and handover peaceful possession of the accommodation in dispute to respondents Nos. 3 to 8 till 30th July, 1988 the petitioner shall not be evicted from the accommodation in dispute till 30th July, 1988. In case the undertaking is not filed by the petitioner, as stated above, it will be open to the respondents to evict the petitioner forthwith in accordance with law.