Noise and vibration caused by the working of machinery in a factory can amount to an actionable nuisance if they cause personal discomfort, interfere with the enjoyment of property, or cause damage to property.

Tek Chand, J.

1. This is plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ambala, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court which had decreed plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff had instituted suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from erecting or working flour mill, oil nxpellers. cotton ginning machine or any other power driven machinery in the premises shown as A B C D in the plan annexed to the plaint. The premises are situated in the new grain market within the municipal limits of Jagadhri, Defendants 5 and 6 Municipal Committee, Jagadhri and Market Committee, Jagadhri, are pro forma defendants. The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of the plot marked C D E F on the plan and the defendants owned the contiguous plot marked A B C D. The plaintiff built a residential house on his plot C D E F and has been living there with his family, son and grandchildren. The contiguous plot of the defendants had been lying vacant for nearly ten years. The defendants 1 to 4 built a house in which they have installed a power driven flour mill, two oil expellers and rice husking machine and they are intending to set up there a cotton ginning plant The machinery was working day and night. It was stated in the plaint that the premises were reserved for residential purposes and as shops for sale. of agricultural produce and other consumer articles. The room in which the machinery has been installed is separated from the plaintiffs house by a wall. The noise and vibration caused by the working of the machinery are resulting in permanent loss of confort to the plaintiff, his family, their health and also in damage to the property. The working of the machinery is a continuing nuisance. The building has been actually damaged. It was stated that the installation of the machinery was against the rules and bye-laws of defendant No. 6. It was also mentioned in the plaint that M/s. Kirn Lal Dev Dutt of Jagadhri had filed a suit in 1958 in the Court or the Sub Judge against the Municipal Committee seeking an injunction restraining the said Committee from interfering with the working of the metal factory situated in the new grain market. This suit was dismissed, and it was held, that the running of a factory in that area would frustrate the very object for which grain market was established and the action of the Municipal Committee in refusing licence to the plaintiff was proper and reasonable.

2. The contesting respondents 1 to 4 in their written statement have denied the allegations and have, inter alia, contended, that the working of the machinery is not an actionable nuisance. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-

-

(1) Whether the working of and additional installation of the factory is nuisance to the plaintiff as alleged?

(2) Whether the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have contravened any terms on which the property was sold to the parties as alleged? It so, to what effect?

(3) Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file this suit?

(4) Relief.

On the first issue, the trial Court was of the view that no case of actionable nuisance was made out. On the second issue, the trial Court found that the erection of the machinery was in contravention of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act. The third issue was not pressed by the defendants and was, therefore, decided against them. In view of findings on issue No. 2, the plaintiffs suit was decreed and permanent injunction was granted restraining defendants 1 to 4 from working the disputed factory or from erecting any other power driven machinery

3. The decision of the trial Court was successfully assailed by the defendants before the Additional District Judge, Ambala. On the first issue, the decision of the trial Court was affirmed hut on the second issue, the view of the lower appellate Court was, that if the defendants were carrying on the work without a proper licence from the Committee, then rig