JUDGMENT F.M. REIS, J. 1. Heard Shri A.R. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 21/07/2010 passed in Eviction Appeal no.71/2000 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman & Diu Building (Lease, Rent And Eviction) Control Act, 1968 came to be dismissed. 4. The only ground on which the application came to be rejected was that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no requirement on the part of the tenant to deposit the rent when an appeal is preferred by the tenant/respondent challenging an order of eviction. 5. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, it was pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties that the issue as to whether the tenant against whom an eviction order has been passed is obliged to deposit the rent, when the matter is pending before the Tribunal came to be settled by the learned Full Bench of this Court by judgment dated 12/09/2012. The Full Bench has come to the conclusion that the tenant has to deposit the rent when an appeal preferred by the tenant against an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller is pending before the Administrative Tribunal. Considering the said judgment of the Full Bench the ground on which the application filed by the petitioners under Section 32(4) of the Rent Control Act was rejected does not survive. 6. Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out that the respondent had filed the reply to the show cause notice only raising a legal ground with regard to the maintainability of the said application and as such the respondent desires to file an additional reply justifying the delay in depositing such rent. The respondent, if so advised, can file any application for leave to file an additional affidavit which the Tribunal may consider in accordance with law. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 21/07/2010 passed by the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The respondent, if so advised, can file any application for leave to file an additional affidavit which the Tribunal may consider in accordance with law. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 21/07/2010 passed by the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Tribunal is directed to decide the application under Section 32(4) of the said Act dated 8/06/2009 afresh in the light of the observations made herein above after hearing the parties in accordance with law. (iii) All contentions of the parties on merits are left open. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (iv) The Tribunal is directed dispose of the said application as expeditiously as possible. (v) The petition stands disposed of. (vi) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 12/10/2012 at 10.30 a.m.