ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the LXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru on I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S.No.25486/2024 dated 11.07.2024.

2. The respondent herein had filed a suit for injunction. The prayer that is sought in the suit is to pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting up construction at the suit Schedule 'B' property without leaving a set back of 3 feet towards western side of Schedule 'B' property and restraining defendant from interfering with natural air and light access (easementary) to the suit Schedule 'A' property from the western side of the suit Schedule 'B' property by undertaking constructions at the set back area therein. He has filed an application seeking injunction to restrain the defendant from making construction. Initially, the Court had granted ex-parte injunction. Thereafter, the present IA came to be filed by the defendant to set aside the said order. The Court by order impugned, had dismissed the application filed by the defendant and allowed application filed by the plaintiff and restrained the defendant from making further construction.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submits that the three floors house was constructed in the year 1992 and even as per the sanctioned plan of the year 1992, there was a provision for a garage. He relies on the Rules of the BBMP bye-laws and submits that for construction of garage, no permission is required. It is also submitted that they have the approval in the year 1992. As per the same, they are making the construction and when they started the construction, the plaintiff has not raised any objection and now after almost when they completed the construction, at that point of time, suit is filed. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant further submits that it is settled law that there cannot be any injunction against the neighbor, particularly, on the ground that the bye-laws of the BBMP Act were not complied with. It is submitted that if the injunction is not vacated, it would cause a lot of hardship to the defendant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the plan was of the year 1992. Now, when they want to make a construction, they are supposed to take permission of BBMP. In this case, no such permission is obtained. In fact, the photographs clearly shows that it is not a garage in the true sense, but they are making a small portion where there is a washroom also. It is submitted that it is not his case alone that the permission is not taken, but also because of the said construction that is raised by the defendant, his right to light and air to his property on the eastern side will be affected and also it causes unnecessary nuisance for him. It is submitted that if they have obtained a permission to carry on the construction, then if there is any violation, it can be brought to the notice of the BBMP. But in this case, there is no such permission. It is submitted that the trial Court had rightly granted injunction against the defendant.

5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction. It is the specific case that without obtaining any permission and obstructing the free flow of air and light to the plaintiff, though named as a garage, he is constructing a room along with a washroom. When he brought these things to the notice of the BBMP, they have issued notice to both the parties. Thereafter, no further action has been taken. In the meantime, the defendant had started construction, which made the plaintiff to approach the Court. Now, this Court has perused the photographs. The photographs shows that it is not a simple garage, it also shows a wash room. It is the submission that the garage can also have a wash room next to it. The permission is obtained in the year 1992. When they want to make a new construction, th