JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed by me on 8th April, 2002, for reasons to be recorded later on. Here are the reasons for dismissing the writ petition.
2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act') against the tenant-respondent No. 2. This application was allowed ex parte by the prescribed authority vide its order dated 4th June, 1999. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 2 filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 4th June, 1999, passed in P.A. Case No. 19 of 1994, which has been registered as Misc. P.A. Case No. 2 of 1999. The aforesaid application was allowed and the case was restored to its Original number on the payment of Rs. 150 as cost, vide order dated 15th October, 1999. The petitioner-landlord filed another application which was registered as P.A. Case No. 1 of 1999 for possession of the accommodation in question when admittedly the order dated 4th June, 1999, was already set aside the Misc. P.A. Case No. 2 of 1999 and the cost has already been paid by the respondent No. 2 on 29.5.2000. In this view of the matter, the order issuing possession pursuance of the direction issued in Misc. P.A. Case No. 1 of 1999, which has already been set aside when Original P.A. Case No. 19 of 1994 has been restored vide order dated 4th June, 1999, which has been argued by the landlord before the prescribed authority that the order passed in P.A. Case No. 2 of 1999 cannot review the effect of Misc. P. A. Case No. 1 of 1999 as the same has become final. The prescribed authority has held that, in his opinion, since ex parte order was obtained by practising fraud on the basis of the aforesaid order which was obtained by fraud and it was ultimately set aside on 4th June, 1999 even if a writ for possession has been issued, the same is available for re-entering in the accommodation in question on the basis of the law laid down in 1980 ARC 369. In this view of the matter, the prescribed authority set aside the order passed in Misc. P. A. Case No. 2 of 1999 and all the proceedings in Misc. P. A. Case No. 1 of 1999 restored the Original P. A. Case No. 19 of 1994 setting aside the ex parte order dated 4th June, 1999 and directed that the possession be handed over to the tenant-respondent No. 2. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same argument, which he has already advanced before the prescribed authority. I am in full agreement with the reasons given by the prescribed authority which is based on the principles of law laid down by this Court.
3. Apart from above, since the matter has been directed to be heard on merits, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the suit as on the date when the order dated 4th June, 1999, was passed, be maintained and restored. In this view of the matter also this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs.