JUDGMENT - D.R. DHANUKA, J.:--This appeal is preferred against order dated 13th April, 1976 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Municipal Appeal No. 210 of 1975. The relevant facts are briefly summarised hereinafter. 2. This appeal involves consideration of an important question of law for consideration of this Court concerning the locus of the appellant in respect of filing of an appeal under section 217 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. If the owner of the building as for example - A Co-operative Housing Society is aggrieved by an order of fixation or enhancement of rateable value of the building, such an owner can always prefer the statutory appeal before the learned Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes at Bombay under section 217 of the Act. It is common knowledge that the prescribed municipal authority works out rateable value, original or enhanced in respect of each tenement or the flat in building before it works out the aggregate and discloses the same to the owner of the building as a matter of fairness. Sometimes the rateable value is enhanced only in respect of a particular flat or a tenement. It is also common knowledge the burden of enhanced municipal taxes leviable as a result of increase in rateable value ordinarily falls on the occupant of such a flat or tenement whether he occupies the flat or tenement on ownership basis or as a tenant. The question arising in this appeal for consideration of this Court is as to whether such an occupant i.e. the owner or the tenant has a locus standi to file an appeal being person aggrieved by the order fixing or enhancing the rateable value or whether the right of appeal is restricted to the owner of the entire building only. The learned Additional Chief Judge has reached the conclusion that an owner or tenant of an individual flat has no right of appeal under section 217 of the Act. I do not agree. It is well settled that a 'party genuinely aggrieved' against an order or judgment can always file an appeal, before the appellate forum. Even where the 'party aggrieved' is not a party to the original proceeding and is a third party in this sense, such a third party can file its appeal before the appellate forum with leave of the Court. Even where the 'party aggrieved' is not a party to the original proceeding and is a third party in this sense, such a third party can file its appeal before the appellate forum with leave of the Court. There is nothing in section 217(2) of the Act so as to take away the general right of an appeal as aforesaid and restrict the same to the party who has filed the complaint against the proposed or enhanced rateable value of the entire property. The section cannot be interpreted in such a narrow and restrictive manner. In a given case, the Society may not prefer the statutory appeal for one reason or another and be content to pass on burden of increased taxes on owner or tenant of particular flat. If it is held that the owner or tenant of the flat has no locus standi to file the statutory appeal under section 217 of the Act, such a construction would lead to patent injustice. The relevant facts are summarised hereinafter. 3. The appellant is an occupant of flat No. 4 forming part of the building known as Suleman Chambers situated at Battery Street, Bombay - 1. The appellant is a tenant of the said flat. Suleman Chambers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. is the owner of the said building. The said society was served with a special notice whereby the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay proposed to fix the rateable value of the building known as Suleman Chambers at Rs. 42,885/-. The society lodged its complaint. By an order dated 3rd February 1975, the Investigating Officer of Municipal Corporation fixed the rateable value of the said building at Rs. 40,630/- from 1st April 1975. On making enquiries, it was ascertained by the appellant from the Municipal Corporation that the rateable value in respect of flat No. 4 in the said building was computed on the footing of hypothetical rent of the said flat being Rs. 192-95 even though the actual rent in respect of the said flat was Rs. 72-50 per month and the rateable value in respect of the said flat was always assessed in the past on that footing. It appears that the appellant had made some alterations in flat No. 4 at the relevant time and it was also alleged by the Corporation that the said flat was being used for non-residential purpose at the material time. 4. It appears that the appellant had made some alterations in flat No. 4 at the relevant time and it was also alleged by the Corporation that the said flat was being used for non-residential purpose at the material time. 4. Being aggrieved by order dated 3rd February 1975 passed by Assessor and Collector of Municipal Corporation, the appellant filed an appeal before the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay as contemplated under section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The said appeal was numbered as Municipal Appeal No. 210 of 1975. The appellant was certainly "a person aggrieved" in respect of the order passed by the Investigating Officer enhancing the rateable value of the property in so far as the said flat No. 4 was concerned. As a matter of abundant caution even the society i.e. Suleman Chambers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., made an application to the trial Court for being impleaded as appellant No. 2 in the said appeal. The learned Additional Chief Judge erroneously rejected the said application made by the society on the ground of delay. The learned Addl. Chief Judge reached the conclusion that the society alone could file the appeal against the order passed by the Investigating Officer enhancing the rateable value and that an appeal could not be filed by the appellant under section 217 of the Act against the impugned order fixing enhanced rateable value in respect of the entire building. The learned Additional Chief Judge reached the conclusion that no appeal could be filed challenging enhancement of rateable value in respect of one flat only and no such appeal could be filed by the appellant who was merely a tenant in respect of the said flat. On merits, the learned trial Judge recorded a finding to the effect that the rateable value of flat No. 4 ought to be fixed at Rs. 1180/- in light of hypothetical rent of the said flat being taken as Rs. 120/ per month. The learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional Chief Judge in so far as the figure of the rateable value was fixed by the learned Additional Chief Judge at Rs. 1180/-. 5. The learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the said appeal was not maintainable. 1180/-. 5. The learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the said appeal was not maintainable. The learned Additional Chief Judge also rejected the application of the Society for being impleaded as appellant No. 2 on the ground of delay. In my opinion, the view taken by the learned Additional Chief Judge is too technical and is not in conformity with the true interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and the general principles applicable in such cases. 6. Section 217 of the Act reads as under : "217. (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against any rateable value or tax fixed or charges under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court. (2) But no such appeal shall be entertained by the said Chief Judge, unless - (a) it is brought within fifteen days after the accrual of the cause of complaint; (b) in the case of an appeal against a rateable value a complaint has previously been made to the Commissioner under section 163, as such complaint has been disposed of ; (c) in the case of an appeal against any amendment made in the assessment book under section 167 during the official year, a complaint has been made by the person aggrieved within fifteen days after he first received notice of such amendment, and his complaint has been disposed of ; (d) in the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made against rateable value the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant, or the amount of the tax chargeable on the basis of the disputed rateable value, up to the date of filing of the appeal, has been deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner. (3) ............. (4) .......... (5) ......... 7. Section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act does not state in terms as to who can file an appeal against the order of Assessor and Collector fixing the rateable value of the property. It is therefore obvious that any person genuinely and lawfully aggrieved by the order fixing or enhancing the rateable value in respect of the entire property or part thereof can file the statutory appeal under section 217 of the Act. It is therefore obvious that any person genuinely and lawfully aggrieved by the order fixing or enhancing the rateable value in respect of the entire property or part thereof can file the statutory appeal under section 217 of the Act. The appellant was and is undoubtedly a person likely to be adversely affected by the impugned order in so far as the enhanced rateable value partains to flat No. 4 is concerned. If the impugned enhanced rateable value in respect of the said flat is not set aside, the appellant would be directly and adversely affected. It is common knowledge that the landlord is entitled to recover the municipal taxes from the tenant of the flat as and by way of 'permitted increases'. The learned Additional Chief Judge has held that section 217(2) of the Act indicates that the requisite appeal can be filed only by a party who has filed the statutory "complaint" in pursuance of the special notice served on the owner of the entire building and no one else. I do not agree. The society could undoubtedly file an appeal challenging the enhancement of rateable value in respect of the entire building and thus challenge the enhanced rateable value in respect of flat No. 4. It does not follow from the above that the owner or tenant of particular flat has no locus standi to file the requisite appeal if he is likely to be adversely affected by the impugned order unless set aside or modified. As a person lawfully aggrieved by the order under the appeal, the appellant had requisite locus standi to file the appeal herein. In this case the society had even made an application to the learned Chief Judge for being impleaded as appellant No. 2 in the appeal. The learned Additional Chief Judge was not right in rejecting the said application merely on the ground of delay. The learned Additional Chief Judge ought to have granted the said application. In my opinion, the appeal filed by the appellant was maintainable in law. No useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter to the learned Chief Judge for re-hearing of the appeal after society is impleaded as appeal No. 2 in the appeal. The learned Additional Chief Judge ought to have granted the said application. In my opinion, the appeal filed by the appellant was maintainable in law. No useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter to the learned Chief Judge for re-hearing of the appeal after society is impleaded as appeal No. 2 in the appeal. There is no dispute between the parties in respect of correctness of the finding recorded by trial Court on merits of the controversy i.e. fixation of rateable value of flat No. 4 at Rs. 1180/-. 8. Every person who can be said to be genuinely aggrived by an order fixing or enhancing the rateable value of the building or part thereof has locus standi to file the statutory appeal under section 217 of the Act. The locus standi of the appellant to file such appeal is not restricted to owner of the entire property who has filed a complaint against the order fixing the rateable value as aforesaid. Thus an individual holder of an ownership flat or a tenant thereof has locus standi to file the appeal and impugn the order fixing rateable value or enhancing the same in so far as his own flat is concerned whether held on ownership basis or as a tenant. I set aside the finding of the learned Additional Judge holding that the appellant had no locus standi to file the appeal and hold that the appeal was maintainable in law and liable to be decided on merits. 9. In the result, appeal succeeds. The order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, dismissing Municipal Appeal No. 210 of 1975 on ground of want of locus standi is set aside. The order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge fixing the rateable value in respect of flat No. 4 in the building known as Suleman Chambers (being the flat of which the appellant is a tenant) at Rs. 1180/- on the basis of hypothetical rent being taken at Rs. 120/- per month is hereby confirmed. This appeal is finally disposed of in terms aforesaid. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Issue of certified copy expedited. Appeal succeeds.