Introduction

• This is a landmark judgment where the Court discussed the essential constituents of tort of nuisance.
• The judgment was delivered by Justice Hyder.

Facts

• The plaintiff in this case was a Medical Practitioner. He had built a consulting chamber before the brick grinding machine erected by the respondent (defendant).
• The brick grinding machine was electrically propelled and it was situated at about 40 feet from the consulting chamber of the plaintiff.
• It was the case of the plaintiff that:
  • The brick grinding machine was generating dust that caused physical inconvenience to him as well as his patients.
  • It was further alleged that the machine had been set up by the respondent without the permission or license from the Municipal Board.
• The defendant contested the suit on the ground that:
  • No dust emanated from the machine as a result of the process of grinding.
  • The erection of the machine did not cause any kind of nuisance- private or public.
  • The suit was filed only on account of enmity
• The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and held that the dust from the machine did not cause substantial injury to either the plaintiff or his patients.
• The Court of Appeal affirmed the findings of the Trial Court.

Issue Involved

• Whether the act constituted the tort of nuisance?

Observations

• The question whether certain facts constituted nuisance was a question of law.
• The Court here cited the work by Clerk and Lindsell on ‘Tort’ wherein it was said that “The essence of nuisance is a condition or activity that interferes with the use or enjoyment of land.”
• The Court further held that nuisance is an act or omission which an interference with, disturbance or annoyance to a person in the exercise or enjoyments of a right belonging to him as a member of the public, (when it is a public nuisance), or his owner-ship or occupation of land or of some easement, private, or other right used or enjoyed in connection with land, (when it is a private nuisance).
• Also, anything done by a person which has repercussions on the neighbour’s land will not always amount to nuisance.
• It is possible that the consequences are of such a trivial nature that no reasonable person would object to the same.
• The standard employed is that of a sober and reasonable mind.
• The Court cited the case of Ramlal v. Mustafabad Oil and Cotton Ginning Factory (1968) wherein it was held that actionable nuisance does not admit of enumeration and any operation which causes injury to health, to property, to comfort, to business or to public moral would be deemed to be a nuisance.
• The Court observed that it is clear from the facts that the consulting chamber started functioning before the machine set up by the defendant-respondent.
• The Court held that it has been proved that special damage has been caused to the plaintiff as it has been proved that the dust from the bricks entered into the consulting chamber so that a thin red coating was visible on the clothes of the persons sitting.
• The Court further examined if “substantial injury” was caused:
  • The test to be applied here is that of a reasonable person and the expression does not take into account susceptibilities of a hyper sensitive person.
  • Thus, any act would amount to private nuisance which can reasonably be said to cause injury, discomfort or annoyance to a person.
• Thus, the Court allowed the appeal and granted permanent injunction against the defendants.

Conclusion

• The Court in this case held that the plaintiff was successful in proving special damage and hence entitled to the remedy.
• Further, it was also clarified that in case of tort of nuisance the test to be employed is that of reasonable person and not that of a hypersensitive person.