Discomfort amounting to actionable nuisance can lead to relief of injunction, and non-compliance with licensing conditions can be used against the defendant.

1) The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2004 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar and also against the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No.13 of 2007 which was pending in the Court of the District Judge-1 Nandurbar. Relief of injunction is granted against the appellant to prevent the nuisance by the trial Court and the decision is confirmed by the first appellate Court. Both sides are heard.

2) The plaintiff and the co-sharer are owners of property bearing CTS No.2407/1-A situated at Nandurbar. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant is in possession of property bearing CTS No.2407/1-B situated adjacent to the property of the plaintiff and the defendant is illegally running a saw mill on property CTS No. 2407/1- B. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is not having necessary licence to run the saw mill. It is contended that due to machinery of saw mill there is noise pollution and the machinery is causing vibrations also and it is also nuisance to the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendant is keeping his wood on the property of the plaintiff and it is also creating nuisance. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is residing in the building constructed on property CTS No.2407/1-A and due to vibrations caused by the machinery of the defendant danger is created to the building of the plaintiff. It is contended that due to aforesaid vibrations and noise the plaintiff is suffering ill-health and he is not in a position to tolerate this nuisance as he has become old.

3) It is the case of the plaintiff that both properties bearing CTS Nos.2407/1-A and 2407/1-B are situated in residential zone of the local body and the defendant is running the saw mill illegally there. It is contended that the defendant has no right to run saw mill there and for nuisance also preventive relief needs to be given against the defendant to stop the nuisance.

4) The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. He has contended that he is doing the business of saw mill on the property CTS No.2407/1-B since 1992 and right from beginning he is holding necessary licence of competent authority to do this business. It is contended that his machinery is not creating noise pollution and also the vibrations and no actionable wrong, nuisance as such is there. It is contended that due to delay caused in taking action, due to latches and acquiescence also the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief.

5) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings issues were framed. Both the sides gave evidence. Both the Courts below have held that it is a case of actionable nuisance. The Courts below have held that defendant has not obtained licence to run the saw mill on property CTS No.2407/1-B but the machinery is kept there and so he is running the business illegally.

6) Son of the plaintiff, residing in the building constructed on CTS No.2407/1-A, has given evidence on nuisance. His evidence is consistent with the aforesaid pleadings. Suggestions are given to the son of the plaintiff by the defendant that the plaintiff must have become accustomed with the noise now. It is suggested that as the plaintiff was working in a Railway workshop, he cannot say that noise is causing annoyance to him. In the evidence of the son of the plaintiff it is brought on record that there are many houses surrounding the saw mill on property CTS No.2407/1-B. It is suggested that in the vicinity there are saw mills and they are also causing nuisance but such suggestions are no admitted. The suggestions and the evidence of the defendant show that it is not disputed that there is only one saw mill and that is of the defendant in that locality. Son of the plaintiff has specifically stated in the cross examination that his building is situated at a distance of 10 ft from the place where the machinery is being used by the defendant.

7) Son of the plaintiff has ad