The suit against a tenant for nuisance can be maintained even without authorization from all trustees, as long as they are impleaded as defendants.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11/12/2001 passed by IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 6A/2001, by which the judgment and decree dated 24/4/1995 passed by II Civil Judge Class II, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.37A/91 has been reversed.

2. Appellants are defendants, who have lost their case from the first appellate Court.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for removal of encroachment, nuisance and dirt as well as for opening the street and for closing down the boiler, chimney etc. The case of the plaintiff was that plaintiff/Trust has a building situated in front of Dharamshala Shri Ramchand Phoolchand Agarwal, Shivpuri. Manager/Trustee of the Trust has been authorised by resolution dated 19/02/1978 to take legal action. On the back side of the building a street is situated which opens towards Upbhokta Bhandar and Sarai. Towards this street, big gate of building as well as windows of the Building are situated and the street is used for passage purposes. Except this street there is no other passage for approaching the building. The building and street have been shown as A, B, C, D in the plaint map and doors and windows have been shown as Ka, Kha and Ga. Defendant Nos. 1,2 and 3 are father and sons and they carry out joint business and reside jointly. Plaintiff/Trust had inducted the defendants as tenants of a Hall situated in this street for a period of 8 years on monthly rent of ₹150. Rent Receipts are issued in the name of Mahesh Kumar Anand Kumar. Without the permission of Trust as well as without the consent of Municipal Council/defendant no. 4, defendants installed a tin shed and a boiler and also constructed a Godown which is marked in green ink in the plaint map. The chimney and boiler were installed just adjoining to the building of the trust, as a result, the smoke comes out and dirt also gets spread. The kitchen of the Trust building as well as the passage to the trust has been closed and the windows have become useless. It was pleaded that the aforesaid act of defendants came to the knowledge of plaintiff in September 1985. Plaintiff requested the defendants to remove the goods and open the street but defendants avoided. It was further pleaded that on account of activities of defendants, fresh air and light has stopped coming into the building. Even the passage to building has been closed, and because of emission of smoke and spreading of dirt, nuisance is being created against the Trust. It was further pleaded that there is every possibility that a blast may take place in the boiler as well as chimney, thereby putting lives of people in jeopardy. On account of act of defendants, Trust is not in a position to use the kitchen in a hygienic and proper manner and the street is also blocked, whereas defendants have no right to block the street. Accordingly, a registered notice was sent to defendants on 05/10/1985 for removal of goods as well as boiler and chimney, which was received by defendants on 07/10/1985, but no action was taken by defendants. Accordingly, the suit was filed for a decree that the defendants be directed to remove all their belongings and to open the street as well as to remove the boiler and chimney so that trust can use its doors and windows in a proper manner and permanent injunction was also sought that defendants should not spread dirt in future. By way of amendment, it was pleaded that on 21/05/1991, fire broke out on account of negligent act of defendants, as a result, damage was caused to Trust buildi