Nuisance — Meaning, Types, and Defences
Meaning of Nuisance –
Nuisance in the context of Indian law is studied under the Law of Torts, the Indian Penal Code, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is defined as illegal interference with any person’s use or enjoyment of land, or interference with some right over the land.
It is important to understand the difference between nuisance and trespass. Trespass includes a direct interference with the possession of the land of the plaintiff using some object. The major point of difference is that in the case of trespass the interference is direct and in the case of nuisance the interference is consequential. Trespass involves interference with the possession of the land of a person and uses a tangible object whereas nuisance involves interference with the use or enjoyment of the land of a person and can also be done through intangible means.
Types of Nuisances –
Public Nuisance:
It is defined under Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code. The section states that if any person does an action or any omission of an act which must have been done by any man of ordinary prudence and such act or omission causes some obstruction, or injury, or any kind of danger to the public or causes annoyance to the public or to the people who are commonly residing, or to the people who have a public right to use such property in that place, then such a person is said to be guilty of the offense of public nuisance. Also, a nuisance cannot be excused just because it gives some amount of comfort to a set of people and causing inconvenience to another.
In some cases, where a person had suffered some particular or special damage that is different from what is imposed on the public, such a person has the right to bring about a civil action. For the purpose of avoiding numerous suits under public nuisance, legal provisions are made such that public nuisance is punishable under the Criminal Law only.
Private Nuisance:
It is the type of nuisance that interferes with a particular person or a specific entity. It affects a person or persons differentiated from the public at large. To constitute a private nuisance, it must be proved that there was an unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of land and there was damage done to the plaintiff.
1. Unreasonable Interference: Interference leads to personal discomfort or may cause some damage to the property of the plaintiff. But it is significant to note that every interference cannot amount to a private nuisance.
In a case, Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad, AIR 1978 All 86, A and B filed a suit against C and others. The reason for the suit was that C and others had planned to install a flour mill on the first floor of the premises where A and B reside. A and B had requested to issue a permanent injunction to stop C and others from installing the flour mill as it will create noise leading to nuisance and disturb the peace of the other residents. It was also further stated that the locality was already noisy and would create more of a nuisance if the machines of the mill made rattling sounds. Thus, it was held that such interference with the physical comfort amounts to nuisance and a permanent injunction was issued.
Sensitive Plaintiff: -
An act cannot be termed as unreasonable and actionable when the damage was caused because the plaintiff was sensitive towards the issue. If the noise created by the construction of a building in a certain neighborhood is not felt like a nuisance by most of the residents and only one person has issues with the noise, then such noise does not amount to a nuisance.
Malice: -
An act that was otherwise lawful, does not become a nuisance if such act was done by the defendant with an evil motive (Mayor of Bradford Corp. v. Pickles, (1895) AC 587; 64 LJ Ch. 597). But, if such an act done with an evil motive leads to an unreasonable interference, then it amounts to a nuisance. “If a man creates a nuisance, he cannot say that he is acting reasonably. The two things are self-contradictory.” (Att. Gen. v. Cole, (1901) 2 Ch. 205, at 207 per Kekewich, J.)
In a case, Allen v. Flood, (1898) A.C. 1, 101, it was stated by Lord Watson that an owner does not have any right to create noises at his own land just because he is the owner. Law had provided such ownership with the condition that he will not cause a nuisance to the neighbors and if he creates nuisance with the intention to do so, then he is found guilty of malice in the strict legal sense.
2. Interference with the use or enjoyment of land: interference leads to injury to the property and injury to the comfort of the health of occupants of the property.
Injury to property: -
Interfering with someone else’s property in an unauthorized manner by using some object or some intangible means that leads to damage of the property is actionable as a nuisance. In a case, fumes from the company of A damaged the trees and shrubs of B. B sued A for nuisance. It was held that such damage amounted to injury to property and A was held liable (St. Helen’s Smelting Co. v. Tipping, (1865) 11 H.L).
Injury to comfort or health: -
Interfering with comfort and peace while using a premise amount to a nuisance. But a small or very trivial bearable inconvenience cannot amount to a nuisance. De minmis non-curat lex meaning that the law does not take account of very trifling matters. For nuisance causing injury to comfort or health, it must be proved that a very serious inconvenience had been caused. But the standard of comfort varies from person to person, time to time, and place to place.
For example, causing disturbance to neighbors with very loud music to that point that it is no more heard as music but noise amounts to a nuisance. The release of dangerous vapor in the air that is toxic and injurious to health amounts to a nuisance when people around are not comfortable because of the smoke/vapor.
3. Damage: In the case of nuisance, it is necessary to prove that actual damage had taken place. In case of public nuisance, to bring action against the people causing a nuisance, it is necessary to prove that special and particular damage had taken place. By special or particular damage, it is expressed that there must have been some injury caused to a person in contradiction to the whole of the public that is getting affected.
In a case, Fay v. Prentice (1854) 1 C.B. 828, a cornice of A’s house projected over B’s Garden. B’s complaint was that if it rained water would fall in his Garden damaging his plants, thus it was concluded as a nuisance.
Defenses to Nuisance –
Effectual Defences: -
1. Prescriptive right to commit nuisance: A right to do some act that might otherwise amount to nuisance, can be acquired by prescription. If a person carries out any activity on another person’s land for a period of 20 years or more than that, then such person acquires a legal right by prescription to continue the activity further. After a period of 20 years, it becomes legalized ab initio since the owner had no objection during the period of 20 years.
2. Statutory Authority: If an act is done under the authority of a statute is an effective defense for nuisance. Lord Halsbury stated that “It cannot now be doubted that a railway company constituted for the purpose of carrying passengers, or goods, or cattle, are protected in the use of the functions with which Parliament has entrusted them if the use they make of those functions necessarily involves the creation of what would otherwise be a nuisance at Common Law.”
Ineffectual Defences: -
1. Nuisance due to acts of others: In few circumstances, it may happen that two or more people did an act but the act of one of them amounted to a nuisance. In such a case, an action can be brought against any one of them as they all had acted together and the mere fact that the nuisance was caused by only one will amount to no good defense.
2. Public Good: One cannot say that an act is beneficial for someone else if the same act amounts to nuisance to a whole set of people. If such a statement was accepted as a nuisance, then no person can be held liable for any unlawful interference with the rights of people.
3. Reasonable Care: Arguing that one had used enough reasonable care to prevent a nuisance cannot be a good defense. In a case, Rapier v. London Tramways Co., (1893) 2 Ch. 588, A’s stables, which were built to accommodate 200 horses to draw their trams, produced a significant stench that constituted a nuisance. A’s defense was that all reasonable precautions were taken to avoid the nuisance was rejected, and they were found liable. If no amount of care and skill can prevent an operation from causing a nuisance, if it cannot be undertaken lawfully at all, except with the consent of those who will be harmed by it or under the authority of a statute.
4. Plaintiff coming to nuisance: A person has all the right to buy a piece of land even though a nuisance existed on that long before such person decided to buy it. It can be no good defense by the defendant that the plaintiff came to the place of nuisance himself. Volenti non-fit injuria is not applicable here.
Conclusion –
A nuisance is an act involving interference with the comfort of someone else. No one can cause a nuisance to another person or has the right to interfere with their convenience. Persons who create nuisance be it private or public will be held liable. The interference can be of any type be it noise, gaseous way of creating a nuisance, etc. Law clearly states that nuisance is an offense.
