A citizen has the right to institute a suit to ensure effective implementation of Municipal regulations, even in the absence of specific personal injury to the person suing.

1. The fast process of urbanisation appears to have adverse impact on well-cherished values and human relations. A waning effect on the biblical exhortation to love one's neighbour seems to be one such ill-effect. Kennaway v. Thompson ((1980)3 All ER 329) is an instance of legal action where according to Lawton L. J. the parties forgot the message: 'live and let live'. This second appeal is the culmination of a feud between neighbours on a matter which can normally be treated as trivial. The principle underlying the litigation, however, is one of great importance. The cleavage of judicial opinion on the crucial issue is intense and sharp.

2. The parties hail from the City of Calicut. They own and possess adjacent plots, the plaintiff, the northern one and the defendant, the southern. Unikulan was admittedly the owner of the land'Nalukandi Paramba' comprising the plaint schedule property. Ext. Al is the demise dated 4-8-1893 relating to that land granted by the Kizhakke Kovilakam. Though the status of the plaintiff as the daughter of Unikulan had been contested, it was upheld by the trial court. The controversy was not pursued further. The 1st defendant came by possession of the southern portion on the basis of a lease deed Ext. BI dated 19-4-1958. Subsequently he obtained the entire rights therein under Ext. B2 dated 29-5-1961. The parties do not make any claim to the property of each other.

3. The Corporation of Calicut granted on 9-12-1970 a licence to Bavakutty, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants (who are his widow and children) for the construction of a latrine in the property. The blue print of the plan of the house is Ext. B5. On 2-3-1971 permission was granted to the defendants for the construction of the main house, a storeyed building, under Ext. B3. The complaint of the plaintiff was that the defendants' proposed construction would have the effect of reducing the space between the houses to 3 feet. It was stated that the roof of the new construction would protrude into the plaintiff's house. The cause of action was founded on R.30 of the Kerala Municipal Corporation Building Rules framed under the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") which enjoins providing a vacant space of 7 feet between two buildings.

4. The suit was filed on 7-4-1973. A commissioner appointed in the case visited the property on 23-10-1973 and submitted his report and plan on 8-11-1973. An additional report had been called for and that was submitted on 27-5-1974. By that time the construction of the building had progressed considerably, though not fully completed. The plaintiff moved I.A. No. 3832 of 1975 for amendment of the plaint to envelop a relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of, what according to her, was an unauthorised construction.

5. In addition to the contention that there was express authorisation from the Corporation for the construction, the defendants raised a plea that even if there be an infraction of a Municipal regulation, that would not enable the plaintiff to have locus for sustaining a suit of the nature. Matters concerning violation of the Municipal Rules are entirely the look-out of the local authority, according to them. This contention was projected as a preliminary objection. The trial court rejected that plea on a consideration of the judicial decisions presented before it. According to it, "a breach of this statutory obligation is also a breach of plaintiff's rights which can be remedied by mandatory injunction if it is otherwise not prohibited by law". The investigation into the factual details revealed that the minimum distance between the basement of the two houses was 41" on the western side and 76" on the eastern side, the distance diminishing at the ceiling and roof level, where the houses almost touch each other on certain points. A violation of R.30(1) of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules was found to be established on the evidence and mat