The central legal point established is that the owner of the property has the locus standi to prefer an appeal against an order of assessment, even if not the assessee at the relevant time.

( 1 ) THE question which falls for consideration in this civil revision petition is, as to whether the petitioner herein who purchased the property in question in the year 1991 could prefer an appeal against an order of assessment dated 28/02/1994 in respect of the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. The learned Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal only on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi.

( 2 ). Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had been permitted to take part in the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and furthermore no objection as regard to her locus was raised by the Delhi Municipal Corporation, the learned court of Appeal below erred in passing the impugned order.

( 3 ). Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand would submit that, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 128 of the delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (in short the "act"), the petitioner herein cannot be said to have any locus to prefer the said appeal. Section 169 of the Act provides that an appeal against the levy or assessment of any tax under this Act shall lie to the Court of the District Judge of Delhi. The said provision does not state that such an appeal would be maintainable only at the instance of the person who was the assessee at the relevant time. An appeal under common law is maintainable at the instance of a person aggrieved. It may be recorded that for the relevant assessment years the conditions of Section 128 of the Act had not been complied with but as the matter stands today it is accepted that the petitioner is the owner of the property. It is true that, in terms of Section 128 of the Act, the preliminary liability of the owner of the property is not wiped out but there can also be no doubt that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 123 of the Act that the building in question shall be subject to the first charge for non-payment of the property taxes under the said Act. It is evident that in the event the predecessor of the petitioner does not pay such property tax, ultimately it would be the petitioner who has to pay the same or suffer the consequences as is prodded under Section 123 of the Act. Even otherwise, in a case of this nature the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10-A of the code of Civil Procedure (in short "cpc") may be held to be applicable. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Court of Appeal below committed an error in dismissing the appeal on the ground that petitioner herein has no locus standi to entertain the same. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained, which is accordingly set aside. Matter is remitted to the Court of Appeal for consideration of the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

( 4 ). Revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

( 5 ). Parties shall be at liberty to mention the matter before the learned Court of appeal below for early hearing of the appeal.