JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent landlord preferred an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the disputed premises for settling her son. The said case was allowed ex parte vide order and judgment dated 4.5.2005. It is pleaded that when the petitioner came to know about the said order, he made an application for recall of the said ex parte order but the said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.3.2007 which is under challenge before this Court along with ex parte order dated 4.5.2005. 3. Apart from other argument, it is contended that the respondent landlord had played fraud upon the Court and the petitioner to show that advocate Vijay Thakur had appeared on his behalf but did not file any written statement. It is stated that along with the recall application an affidavit of Vijay Thakur , advocate of the District Court was also filed to show that in fact some other young person had come to engage him and he filed the Vakalatnama but thereafter the said person never appeared and after the ex parte decree was passed the petitioner, who is an old person approached him and only then he came to know that he has been defrauded in filing the Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner. The Court below has not at all considered the affidavit of the advocate while rejecting the recall application. 4. Even otherwise, the Courts should lean in favour of a decision on merits after hearing the parties especially when it involves eviction proceedings. 5. In view of the aforesaid, this petition succeeds and is allowed and both the orders dated 20.3.2007 and 4.5.2005 are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Prescribed Authority who will consider the case on merits in accordance to law and dispose it off within a period of three months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. It is clarified that none of the parties would be entitled to more than two adjournments and that too for a period not exceeding one week at a time subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as cost. 6. In the circumstances of the case, the respondent landlord is entitled to cost which is quantified at Rs. It is clarified that none of the parties would be entitled to more than two adjournments and that too for a period not exceeding one week at a time subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as cost. 6. In the circumstances of the case, the respondent landlord is entitled to cost which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/- to be paid in the court below by the petitioner.