SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Del) 47

High Court Of Delhi
S.HARDAYAL SINGH MEHTA - Appellant
Versus
NIRMALA DEVI - Respondent
First Appeal (OS) 89 of 1983
Decided On : 02/13/1984

Advocates Appeared:
D.D.THAKUR, M.M.KRISHAN, M.R.CHAWLA, MUKUL ROHTAGI, S.C.SINGHA, U.C.SUKLA, Y.K.SABHARVAL, YOGESHVAR PRASAD

The running of an unlicensed guest house, causing unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's enjoyment of her property, constitutes actionable nuisance, and the balance of convenience favors the grant of an injunction to restrain such activity.

Headnote:

NUISANCE - GUEST HOUSE - INJUNCTION - COMMON STAIRCASE - DISTURBANCE - UNLICENSED ACTIVITY - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - LAWFUL USER - RESIDENTIAL AREA - DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957 - DELHI POLICE ACT - SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, Nirmala Devi, filed a suit against defendants, Hardayal Singh Mehta and Smt. Surinder Kaur Mehta, for running an unlicensed guest house in the adjoining flat, causing nuisance and disturbance to her peaceful living. The guest house, named Paul Guest House, had about 25 rooms and was located in a predominantly residential area. Nirmala Devi alleged that the running of the guest house caused noise, disturbance, and interference with her privacy due to the common staircase and the activities of the guests.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the running of the guest house without a license was an unlawful activity and that the acts complained of by Nirmala Devi, such as noise, disturbance, and interference with privacy, constituted actionable nuisance. The court also noted that the guest house was located in a predominantly residential area and that the activities of the guests were causing a nuisance to Nirmala Devi and her family.

Issues: 1. Whether the running of an unlicensed guest house constituted actionable nuisance? 2. Whether the balance of convenience favored the grant of an injunction to restrain the running of the guest house?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the running of an unlicensed guest house constituted actionable nuisance as it caused unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's enjoyment of her property. The court relied on the principles of nuisance law, as expounded in cases like Thompson-Schwab v. Costaki and Laws and others v. Floringlaro Ltd., to determine that the activities of the guest house were causing a sensible interference with the comfortable and convenient enjoyment of the plaintiff's residence. 2. The court held that the balance of convenience favored the grant of an injunction to restrain the running of the guest house. The court considered the fact that the guest house was operating without a license, the nuisance caused to the plaintiff, and the lack of any evidence to suggest that the nuisance would cease if an injunction was not granted.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the single judge granting an injunction to restrain the running of the guest house. The court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of nuisance and that the balance of convenience favored the grant of an injunction.

D. P. Wadhwa, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of the learned single judge restraining the appellants from running a guest house in premises No. 1373, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, till the disposal of the suit. The question in the present case assumes importance with the mushroom growth of guest houses/lodging house in Delhi.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent Smt. Nirmala Devi claims to be owner of property bearing Nos. 1371 and 1372 in Kashmere Gate, Delhi. She is residing there with her family on the first floor since 1959. Her family consists of her four sons, three daughters-in-law and their children. Her married daughter also visits her occasionally. The adjoining flat No. 1373 is owned by defendants Nos. 1 to 5. There is a common staircase to both these flats. Both these flat owners lay their claim to the ownership of the staircase but admit the right of user of each other. I, therefore, take it that the staircase is common. When one climbs up the stairs the flat of Nirmala Devi is on the left and that of defendants Nos. I to 5 on the right. Defendants Nos. I to 5 let out their flat to Shri Hardayal Singh Mehta and Smt. Surinder Kaur Mehta, wife of Shri Hardayal Singh Mehta, defendants Nos. 6 and 7 respectively (for short described as the Mehtas) in 1978. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is defendant No. 8, and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, has been impleaded as defendant No. 9 in the suit, which is primarily directed against the Mehtas who are running a guest house in the name of Paul Guest House in the flat. Nirmala Devi has filed the suit for injunction restraining the Mehtas from running the guest house and also for recovery of damages for damage caused to her premises on account of unauthorised constructions carried out in the flat under the tenancy of the Mehtas. Since admittedly the guest house is being run without any licence either from the Municipal Corporation or the Commissioner of Police, Nirmala Devi has also sought directions requiring both these authorities to prohibit and stop the running of the guest house.

( 3 ) NIRMALA Devi has complained that the Mehtas made unauthorised constructions in October-November 1980 without any sanction under section 337 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and that the change of user of the flat from residential to commercial was also without permission under section 347 of the said Act. She estimated the actual damage to her flat on account of these unauthorised constructions at Rs. l,05,555. 00 and further estimated that the value of her flat had diminished by about Rs. 5 lacs. In the suit she had claimed Rs. l,51,000. 00 in all. This is something which does not concern us in the present appeal. Nirmala Devi has also claimed various other reliefs but again we are not concerned with the same in this appeal.

( 4 ) THE main grievance of Nirmala Devi is that the running of the guest house is causing her nuisance. There are about 25 rooms in the guest house. We have been informed that the width of the common staircase is about 3 . In the written statement filed by the Municipal Corporation it has been stated that as per property tax records on the basis of the inspection report dated 1st September, 1972 the flat in question was being used for residential purposes and the construction consisted of one hall 20 x 20 with wooden partition, tinned roof, one verandah 9 x 20 , two stores 6 x 8 , one temporary tin roof, one store 8 X 5 and bath and latrine, but at present the construction consisted of 16 rooms and open court-yard. I am mentioning these facts not to show the amount of unauthorised construction as alleged but to take note of the size of the guest house. Nirmala Devi alleges that the running of the guest house cause her a great deal of nuisance and it is interfering with her peaceful living and that of her family in the flat. It is averred that many people of different classes and types and some even drunk come to the guest house at odd hours during day
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top