Running Of Mill By Neighbour Causing Rattling Noise Amounts To Actionable Nuisance: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday has observed that while it is acceptable that every little discomfort or inconvenience cannot be brought into the category of an actionable nuisance, however if such inconvenience or annoyance exceeds all reasonable limits then the same would amount to an actionable nuisance.

A Bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee was adjudicating upon a plea wherein the plaintiff had contended that the defendant had been running a mill in the adjoining plot which caused rattling noise and vibration thereby causing discomfort to him and his wife. 

Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court observed, 

"While it is acceptable that every little discomfort or inconvenience cannot be brought on to the category of an actionable nuisance but if such inconvenience or annoyance exceeds all reasonable limits then the same would amount to an actionable nuisance. Frequent and loud noise has been proved to trigger stress and anxiety in both adult and children – more often affecting mental health. A constant cacophony in neighbour's land causing disquietude in one's own abode is beyond a common man's realm of expected endurance."

The Court further underscored that the question as to what would be a reasonable limit in a given case will have to be determined on the basis of whether there has been a material interference with the ordinary discomfort and inconvenience of life under normal circumstances. It was also noted that in the instant case, the activity undertaken by the defendant was not a common occurrence in that particular locality.

"The essence of nuisance is a condition or activity that unduly interferes with land use or enjoyment. Nuisance resulting in interference with one's enjoyment, one's quiet, one's personal freedom, anything that injuriously affects the senses, or could be a matter of health hazard, are some of the considerations which in our view have been properly applied by both the courts in returning a finding in favour of the plaintiff", the Court enumerated further. 

Background 

The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment dated August 12, 2016 passed by the concerned Additional District Judge in an appeal from a judgment dated August 12, 2016 passed by the concerned Civil Judge. 

The plaintiff had filed a suit for actionable nuisance and permanent injunction. It was alleged that the defendant was running a mill on the concerned property with the help of 20 horsepower motor without the required licence. It was further contended that the rattling noise and vibrations from the defendant's plot was injurious to the health of the plaintiff and his wife since it caused discomfort to the enjoyment of their property.

It was further alleged that due to the rattling noise and vibration, the son of the plaintiff could not concentrate on his studies. 

On the other hand, the defendant had alleged in his written statement that he was not required to obtain a 'no objection certificate' from the Pollution Control Board as the mill was running with a motor of 15 horsepower and there was no need to seek a grant of such permission from the Pollution Control Board. It was also contended that the instant plea had been filed out of vengeance and contained fabricated statements.

Observations 

Pursuant to a perusal of the record, the Court noted that over time increasingly more powerful motors were installed with augmented horsepower by the defendant. It was further noted that the issue whether the concerned motors would create a rattling noise and vibration could be available from the manufacturer's certificates and other relevant documents however such essential documents had not been produced by the defendant. 

Accordingly, the Court observed that the Trial Court was correct in relying upon Section 106 of the Evidence Act to draw an adverse inference against the defendant for withholding such important documents. It was further held that the evidence on record clearly suggests that by reason of running of the mill, it has caused discomfort to the enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff materially.

Reliance was also placed on the Madras High Court judgment in Shaikh Ismail Sahib v. Nirchinda Venkatanarasimhulu wherein it had been held that in order to constitute actionable nuisance it is necessary to determine whether the act complained of is an inconvenience, materially interfering with the ordinary physical comfort of human existence and not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living. 

Opining that in the instant case the rattling sound and vibration of the mill had substantially caused discomfort to the plaintiffs, the Court remarked, 

"In the instant case, it is a real interference with the comfort or convenience of living according to the standards of the average man as due of such rattling sound and vibration caused by the three machines the studies of the son of the plaintiff had suffered. Moreover it had caused substantial discomfort to the plaintiffs."

Reliance was also placed on he principles relating to actionable nuisance laid down in Ram Lal v. Mustafabad Oil and Cotton Ginning Factory and Ors. 

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 

Case Title: Srimanta Ghosh & Ors v. Debabrata Ghosh

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 38

Click Here To Read/Download Order