IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 840 OF 2009 MR. ALEXANDER BRAGANZA ... Petitioner Versus MR. JOSEPH MENEZES AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for Respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 in person. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 22nd April, 2010 P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties. Perused the impugned Order dated 16-11-2009. Respondent No.1 filed an application before the Rent Controller under Section 23A of the G.D.D. Rent Control Act, 1968. Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had received a notice of the said application on 17-7-2009 and pursuant thereto he filed an application seeking leave on 27-7-2009 which has not at all been considered by the learned Rent Controller whilst passing the impugned Order. Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Rent Controller fairly concedes that the impugned Order does not show that the Petitioner was served nor gives any reasons in support thereof. In case leave was sought by the Petitioner to defend the proceedings in terms of Section 23A(e), the proceedings could not have been terminated without giving or refusing leave to the Petitioner. As a result, the impugned Order is bound to set aside, and accordingly is set aside. Both the parties are hereby directed to remain present before the learned Rent Controller on 30th instant at 10.00 a.m. for further proceedings. The learned Rent Controller is directed to dispose off the application dated 27-7-2009 filed by the Petitioner before disposing the application under Section 23A of the Act, in accordance with law. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.