JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. Heard Sri S.K. Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri J.P. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondents, though the case has been called in revised and name of Sri Pankaj Bhatia has been shown in the cause list as counsel for respondents. It is pointed out that respondents 2 and 3 were issued notice to engage another counsel. Seen the Office Report dated 3.1.2014. Service is deemed sufficient. I, accordingly, proceed to decide the matter. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.1999 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as ?RCEO?) declaring vacancy in accommodation in dispute which is part of House No. A-29-AM, Jaipuriya Road, Kanpur Nagar comprising of one room, one covered verandah, common latrine and bathroom, which are in possession of petitioner. RCEO has admittedly found petitioner in possession of accommodation in question. However, he has declared vacancy only on the ground that petitioner failed to show that he was in possession of accommodation in question prior to 1976. 3. It is apparent from the impugned order passed by RCEO that accommodation in question was in the tenancy of Subarati. Petitioner is great-grandson (on maternal side) of Subarati, inasmuch Subarati had two sons, one of them was Allaharakhu. Petitioner is son of daughter of Allaharakhu, namely, Bakko. One the receipt, placed on record, dated 18.10.1978 shows that rent was paid, though in the name of Subarati, but through deceased Allaharakhu, meaning thereby the tenancy was in the name of Subarati and devolved upon her legal heirs subsequently after her death and so on. 4. In these facts and circumstances, in my view, the onus lies upon landlord to show that petitioner was an unauthorized occupant of the accommodation in question, but merely because the petitioner could not show any receipt in his own name from the period 1976, his admitted possession could not have been held illegal since he claimed to be legal heirs of erstwhile tenant and erstwhile tenant's rights are not disputed. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot sustain. 5. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.11.1999 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Matter is remanded to RCEO to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above.