The plaintiff must establish substantial privation of light and air to claim easementary rights, and deviations may be regularised as per the Development Control Rules.

The plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. The suit was filed seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the unauthorised construction shown in the sketch attached alongwith the plaint and also for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from putting up any unauthorised construction. A direction has also been sought against the second defendant not to sanction any plan or approval in the process of the regularisation of the illegal and unlawful Act of the first defendant.

.3. The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that she is the owner of the property bearing Door No.56, Hospital Road, Saidapet, Chennai-16. The adjacent property bearing Door No.57 is owned by the first defendant. The first defendant has recently started putting up unauthorised construction in his premises. He has made an attempt to make a window near the compound wall of the plaintiffs house. The unauthorised construction has been put up encroaching upon the easementary rights of the plaintiff for light and air. The first defendant has started construction without any sanctioned plan from the Corporation of Chennai, the second defendant herein. The Corporation authorities, having taken cognizance of the complaint emanated by the plaintiff, took action against the first defendant and the first defendant was fined heavily by the Corporation of Chennai. The authorities concerned have not taken suitable action for demolishing the unauthorised construction. The second defendant has no right to regularise the illegal action of the first defendant. Hence the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. In the written statement, the first defendant has contended that it was true that the first defendant at the first instance constructed a staircase adjacent to the compound wall of the plaintiff and he also put up a ventilator on the wall facing the plaintiffs property. The plaintiff, however, took objection thereof. The first defendant demolished the staircase that was put up adjacent to the plaintiffs property. There is no staircase adjacent to the plaintiffs property or a ventilator near the compound wall as on date. The first defendant has obtained now a new plan duly sanctioned by the Corporation of Chennai. The present structure has been put up by the first defendant only in conformity with the duly sanctioned plan. The present staircase has been constructed only as per the sanctioned plan. It is not for the plaintiff to prescribe either to the second defendant or to the M.M.D.A. (Madras Metropolitan Development Authorities) as to what sort of plans should be sanctioned for the neighboring owners of property. Every property owner has right to make a construction suitable for him. There was no hampering of the easementary right to light and air and free passage to the plaintiff. There is virtually no cause of action for the suit. With the aforesaid contentions the first defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. In the additional written statement filed by the first defendant it has been contended that there was no easementary rights for the plaintiff. The easementary right, if any, for the plaintiff automatically gets extinguished upon the demolition of the super-structure in the plaintiffs property.

6. In the further additional written statement filed by the first defendant it has been contended that the plan sanctioned by the Corporation was approved by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authorities. Inasmuch as the plaintiff having demolished the existing building in his property put up a new construction without adhering to the conditions laid by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authorities cannot seek for such a direction against the defendants.

.7. Thesecond defendant has contended that the first defendant put up unauthorised construction adjacent of the compound wall of the plaintiffs premises. The second defendant took steps against the first defendant for removal of unauthorised construction. In fact, t