Sudhir Agarwal, J.— Heard Sri Prateek Sinha, Advocate for petitioners in Writ Petition No. 35621 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "first writ petition") and for respondents in Writ Petition No. 20823 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "second writ petition") and Sri Nirvikar Gupta, Advocate for respondents in first writ petition and for petitioners in second writ petition. 2. Both these writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, the same are being decided by this common judgment under the Rules of the Court. 3. The first writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2000 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the "RCEO") allowing application of respondent-landlord under Section 16(1)(b) of UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") and declaring vacancy in the accommodation in question, i.e., a portion of House No. 86/127situatedat Rai Purwa, Kanpur. 4. It is not in dispute that accommodation in question was initially let out to one Babu Ram and the application under Section 16(1)(b) of Act, 1972 was filed on the ground that Ram Avtar Verma, son-in-law of Sri Babu Ram has been inducted into premises in question though he is not the member of family as defined under Section 3(g) of Act, 1972 and, therefore, it is a case of sub-letting, resulting in "deemed vacancy" 5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners in first writ petition submitted that Ram Avtar Verma married the daughter of Sri Babu Ram in 1968 and with a written consent of the then landlord dated 10.12.1975 tendered by Sri Raj Bahadur Singh and Sri Rajendra Bahadur Singh, inducted as tenant and there was no unauthorised or illegal act committed by petitioners. 6. The order shows that aforesaid document dated 10.12.1975 was challenged as forged and fictitious document. The same was not proved by petitioners in any manner. Hence it has not been relied upon by RCEO. 6. The order shows that aforesaid document dated 10.12.1975 was challenged as forged and fictitious document. The same was not proved by petitioners in any manner. Hence it has not been relied upon by RCEO. Copy of the said document has been placed on record on page 20 of the writ petition and the language thereof itself is quite complicated, inasmuch as the said document mentions that alleged authors have permitted the erstwhile tenant to make some construction/alteration in the part of tenanted building and while doing so they have mentioned that induction of Sri Ram Avtar Verma was already made with consent of those two authors. Therefore, it is not a consent letter admitting tenancy of Ram Avtar Verma but that is said to have already happened in the past and is a kind of acknowledgment. There is nothing to show as to when earlier and at what point of time that has happened. In fact neither there is any such pleading nor material on record. The RCEO, therefore, has rightly discarded the said document having not been proved even otherwise by petitioners in any manner. 7. It is not disputed that entire case of petitioners in first writ petition is founded on alleged document dated 10.12.1975 which was challenged by respondent-landlord as a manufactured document. When the genuinity and correctness of a document is challenged, the party who is relying on document, has onus to prove the genuinity of document. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners in first writ petition could not dispute that before courts below no attempt was made by petitioners to prove the aforesaid document at all. It is also not in dispute that accommodation was earlier owned by three persons, namely, Sri Buddhiman Singh son of Sri Rangjanth Singh and Sri Raj Bahadur Singh and Rajendra Bahadur Singh both sons of Late Gyan Singh. All these three persons sold the house in question to respondent-landlord in 1999 vide sale deed dated 20.12.1999. The erstwhile landlords were alive and it was always open to petitioners to produce them so as to prove the alleged document dated 10.12.1975 but no such attempt was made by petitioners. All these three persons sold the house in question to respondent-landlord in 1999 vide sale deed dated 20.12.1999. The erstwhile landlords were alive and it was always open to petitioners to produce them so as to prove the alleged document dated 10.12.1975 but no such attempt was made by petitioners. Since petitioners failed to prove the aforesaid document and there was nothing otherwise available to show that entry of Sri Ram Avtar Verma was legally permissible, I find no legal or otherwise infirmity in the order passed by RCEO holding the vacancy in accommodation in question due to unauthorized and illegal entry of Sri Ram Avtar Verma, petitioner no. 1 in the accommodation in question since he did not come within the definition of family under the statute. 9. The first writ petition, therefore, deserved to be failed and order impugned in therein warrants no interference. 10. In the second writ petition it appears that wife of Ram Avtar Verma, i.e., Smt. Rani Devi Verma filed application under Section 16(5) of Act, 1972, i.e., for recall of order dated 03.08.2000 whereby the RCEO declared vacancy. The said application was rejected by RCEO vide order dated 04.06.2001, whereagainst Smt. Rani Devi Verma, i.e., respondent no. 1 in second writ petition, preferred revision and it appears that said revision was allowed by Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar by impugned judgment and order dated 25.04.2003 directing RCEO to rehear the application of respondent no. 1 filed under Section 16(5) that the order declaring vacancy was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 1. 11. In my view the entire proceedings at the instance of Smt. Rani Devi Verma are wholly misconceived and nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law. Sri Ram Avtar Verma, husband of respondent no. 1 was already party in the proceedings initiated under Section 16(1)(b) of Act, 1972 wherein the order dated 03.08.2000 was passed by RCEO after hearing Sri Ram Avtar Verma, the husband of respondent no. 1 and that being so, it cannot be said that respondent no. 1 entitled to be given any separate opportunity. Moreover, I have already held that induction of Sri Ram Avtar Verma rendered a deemed vacancy in the disputed accommodation and hence the RCEO has rightly declared a vacancy therein. 12. 1 and that being so, it cannot be said that respondent no. 1 entitled to be given any separate opportunity. Moreover, I have already held that induction of Sri Ram Avtar Verma rendered a deemed vacancy in the disputed accommodation and hence the RCEO has rightly declared a vacancy therein. 12. In view of above, the first writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 35621 of 2000 is dismissed. The second writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 20823 of 2003 is allowed. The order dated 25.04.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar is hereby quashed and RCEO's order dated 04.06.2001 is restored and affirmed. 13. No costs. _____________