What is basic concept of Continuous offence with reference to Indian criminal law?

 The concept of a "continuous offence" in Indian criminal law refers to an act or a series of acts that constitute a single offence, which continues over a period of time. This is different from a series of separate offences. In the context of criminal law, understanding continuous offences is important for determining issues like the statute of limitations and jurisdiction.

Key Characteristics of a Continuous Offence:

1. Ongoing Nature: The offence persists over a period of time and does not culminate at a single point.
2. Single Transaction: It is considered as one continuous act rather than separate acts.
3. Single Charge: Typically, the offender is charged for a single continuous offence rather than multiple separate offences.

Print Page

Can the plaintiff seek a mandatory injunction to remove malba, garbage, etc. thrown on adjacent land as per 41(j) of the Specific relief Act?

  In the present case the plaintiffs are not suing to protect any possession of theirs over the vacant land. They are instead suing for removal of the garbage/debris in the vacant land behind their flat and for injunction for a restraint on the defendants from throwing the garbage/debris. A person certainly has a right to clean space at the entrance or at the back of his house. That apart, given the averments in the plaint and the reliefs sought for, I do not think that it was a case for rejection of plaint.”

6. The burden of Mr. Vikas Tomar’ s song is that the respondents

had no personal interest over the land, on which the malba/garbage etc. was allegedly being deposited as they claimed no right, title or possession in respect thereof. He submits that, in such circumstances, Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act operates as an absolute proscription against grant of injunction.

7. I am unable to agree.

8. Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act proscribes grant of

injunction “when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter”. The word “matter” is of wide and compendious scope, and would include everything, which is subject matter of the suit and grievance expressed therein. B. Ramanath Iyyer’ s Law Laxican defines “matter” as “a fact or facts constituting a whole or a part of a ground of action or defence”. Vishwanathan v. Abdul Wajid AIR 1963 SC 1

9. If the plaintiff is a complete stranger, having no personal

interest with respect to the grievance expressed in the suit, being “the

matter” in the suit, no doubt, Section 41(j) operates as a proscription

against grant of injunction. The words “the matter” cannot, however,

in my view, be conflict with the property forming subject matter of thesuit. The grievance of the plaintiffs, as voiced in the suit, and dehors holds that “the expression “matter” is not equivalent to “subject matter”; it means the right claimed.” The right claimed by the respondents in their suit was, clearly, avoidance of the nuisance that had resulted as a consequence of the alleged dumping, by the appellants, of malba and garbage onthe land adjoining their premises.its merits, was that the respondents had committed an actionable tort which, if proved, could even amount to nuisance.

10. Inasmuch as the plaintiffs were also claiming that they were

enjoying the land in which the malwa/garbage etc. was being allegedly deposited, dehors the issue of the respondents’ right to possession over the land, it cannot be said that they had no personal interest in respect of the matter, i.e. the grievance ventilated in the suit.

11. To my mind, any other interpretation would be unduly

narrowed and not justified by the words used in Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act.

12. I am of the view, therefore, that the learned ADJ was correct in his opinion expressed by him, in the passages from the impugned order extracted hereinabove, that the respondents cannot be said to have had no personal interest in the matter, so as to justify summary dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC read with Section 41(j)of the Specific Relief Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

RSA 233/2019 and CM Appl. 50920/2019 (stay)

SANJAY CHUGH & ANR  Vs RAM KISHAN 

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

Dated: 30.03.2022

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence if there is allegation that tenant is causing Nuisance to adjoining occupiers?

15. As regards the case of nuisance, Section 16 (i) (c), inter alia, declares that conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring occupier by the tenants or others under him, is the ground for eviction. The nuisance, apparently, is attributed to the period of time when business of fast food was being carried out. We have noticed the findings of the Trial court. The evidence of none of the neighbours, be they any of the shopkeepers in the building itself or otherwise, is forthcoming. Details, as such, thereof are not seen established. The original Plaintiff who resided in the same building has not given evidence. The evidence essentially constitutes of the deposition of PW1, the son of the original Plaintiff and the complaint in writing. Admittedly, he does not reside in the building. He resides elsewhere. No doubt, his evidence that when he came to visit his mother and he would go around, is relied upon to conclude that he has experienced nuisance and that nuisance is established. We would think that having regard to the serious consequences which arise out of ground of nuisance, being established, the facts of this case may not justify eviction of Appellants on the said ground. In fact, the High Court has not independently gone into the matter and it has affirmed the findings of the Appellate Forum. These findings, we have adverted to. We do not think that there was justification for the Appellate court or the High Court to sustain eviction on the ground of nuisance.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4268 of 2019

Decided On: 08.05.2019

Nilesh Laxmichand  Vs.  Shantaben Purushottam Kakad (Since Deceased) by L.Rs.

Print Page

How to prove Nuisance for eviction of tenant from tenanted premises?

(Quoted by Andhyarujina in his Law of Rent Control at page 657) As has also been pointed out by Justice Beaman in Bai Bhicaiji v. Perojshaw Jivanji Kerawalla, MANU/MH/0099/1915 : XVII Bom.L.R. 1040, a legal nuisance is rather an evasive, shifting and intangible thing hard to be pinned down by a verbal definition. It must be always be conditioned by time, place and circumstances. It has been further pointed out by Justice Beaman that in estimating a nuisance complained of, the Court must have regard to the station in life of the plaintiff, and to the locality and the nature of the nuisance complained of. In the absence of statutory provisions, no general considerations of mere policy, or abstract public rights, can be allowed to prevail against what the law recognises and always has recognised as the legal rights of the individual. Again, there are many degrees of nuisances, those which (1) endanger life; (2) endanger health; and (3) diminish the comforts of the plaintiff.

In the Kashinath Shankar case (supra), this Court has specifically dealt with nuisance in relation to a property and has observed in paragraph No. 6 as under:-

"6. The nuisance for which an action would lie under Section 13(1)(c) is incapable of any legal definition. Nuisance ordinarily means that which annoys or hurts or that which is offensive. It includes any act, omission or conduct which causes or is likely to cause inconvenience, hurt, damage or which may Interfere with the enjoyment of the life or property. Anything done which unwarrantably affects the rights of others, endangers life or health, gives offence to the senses, violates the law of decency or obstructs the comfortable and reasonable use of property amounts to nuisance. The question whether a particular act, omission or thing is nuisance or annoyance actionable in law depends on surrounding circumstances. The alleged act or omission, the mode of committing it and the consequences flowing therefrom, amount to nuisance or not at all times would be the question dependent on facts and circumstances of the case. However, one thing is certain that in order to attract the ground of eviction under Section 13(1)(c) invariably it needs to be satisfied that the alleged nuisance is of gross and unusual character, frequent and persistent and that it would not be possible for the affected person or persons to lead normal life and it is such that one cannot ordinarily expect in household. Initiating legal process by filing suits or defending the litigation by a party cannot amount to a nuisance or annoyance, a ground for eviction contemplated under Section 13(1)(c). It is always open to a party to assert and vindicate his right in the competent Court though he may succeed or fail in such litigation. A party who pursues his remedy through legal process or defend himself by opposing the litigation initiated against him, cannot by any stretch of imagination be blamed to be guilty of an act which may be covered by expression "nuisance or annoyance" within the meaning of Section 13(1)(c). 

In Gaurishanker v. Bhikhalal MANU/GJ/0151/1977 : 1977 (XVIII) GLR 805 while dealing with the ambit of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, it was observed that following points must exist to hold the action of the tenant as causing annoyance or nuisance:

(1) It must be of a gross character.

(2) It must be of an unusual character.

(3) It must be frequent and persistent.

(4) It must be such that one cannot ordinarily expect in a household.

(5) It must be such that it would not be possible for the neighbours to lead a normal life which one can hope to live in a busy town or city.

Thus, in this case the emphasis on one of the factors was that such conduct of the tenant must be frequent and persistent meaning thereby single and isolated act of the tenant would not amount to nuisance or annoyance within the meaning of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act.

16. For determining whether the act and conduct of the tenant amounts to nuisance or annoyance to the landlord or landlady the test should be whether a reasonable man in the circumstances of the case would feel annoyed or irritated from the conduct of the tenant. It is not fanciful desire of the" landlord or the landlady which is to be taken into consideration.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 3560 of 1996

Decided On: 04.07.2017

Suklal  Vs. Ramkrushna and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Ghuge, J.

Citation: 2017(2) RCR (Rent)371,2018(2) MHLJ 80

Print Page

Whether tenant can be evicted from tenanted premises if nuisance is removed by him?

 Then, Mr. Dalvi the learned Counsel, submitted and also put forth a photograph to show that the petitioner-tenant has cleared all the terrace of all the pots or roses and that the terrace is now clear and available without any objection from the petitioner-tenant to its use by the respondents-landlords. He posed a question, where then is the cause of annoyance? According to Mr. Dalvi, if the cause of nuisance or annoyance has become non-existent by positive conduct of the petitioner-tenant, then the clause should not be applied.

20. This submission of the learned Counsel is fallacious. In is not only a continuing nuisance or annoyance that can be in issue under that provision. The language employed by section 13(1)(c) of the Act clearly shows that it has a reference to the conduct which may be past, present or continuing. The words used are "has been guilty of conduct" and these words do not admit the acceptance of the submission that when the matter goes to Court, the conduct must be continuing. In the very nature of things, this could not be so. All completed acts of indecent and un-pleasurable behaviour could be put in issue under the clause.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 975 of 1982

Decided On: 15.12.1983

 Gulam Husain Mirza

Vs.

 Laxmidas Premji alias Sagar Premji and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.A. Masodkar, J.

Citation: 1984 MHLJ215

Print Page

Basic concept of Nuisance

"Any material interference with the ordinary comfort of existence; that would be a nuisance... "Annoyance" is a wider term than nuisance, and if you find a thing which reasonably troubles the mind and pleasure, not of a fanciful person or of a skilled person who knows the truth, but of the ordinary sensible English inhabitant of a house-if you find there is anything which disturbs his reasonable peace of mind, that seems to me to be annoyance although it may not appear to amount to physical detriment to comfort."

Therefore, whatever causes material interference with the ordinary comfort of existence would be nuisance and anything that disturbs the reasonable peace of ordinary person and leads to un-pleasurable feeling, would be annoyance. Jessel M.R. In Watson v. Lamington College, 25 S.J. 30, said that it might perhaps be difficult to appreciate the difference between "nuisance" and "annoyance", but as both words were used, "annoyance," evidently meant something less than "nuisance", while Tod-Heatley v. Benham 40 Ch. D. 80 , "annoyance" was treated to have a wider meaning than "nuisance".

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 975 of 1982

Decided On: 15.12.1983

 Gulam Husain Mirza

Vs.

 Laxmidas Premji alias Sagar Premji and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.A. Masodkar, J.

Citation: 1984 MHLJ215

Print Page

How to ascertain nuisance for eviction of tenant from tenanted premises?

 There are no statutory definitions of 'nuisance' or 'annoyance' which under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act constitute a ground for recovery of possession by landlord of a premises in the occupation of tenant. In the case with which we are concerned, the acts of nuisance or annoyance complained of are committed by the tenant and persons residing with him in the premises which is a tenement (flat) lying amidst other tenements (flats) of the one and same storeyed building. The acts of the defendant or persons residing with him in the tenanted premises which are found as acts causing nuisance or annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers, cannot fall short of being acts of nuisance or annoyance if regard is had to their nature, intensity and duration and the consequential ill-effects which might have been produced by them on the normal living of such occupiers. Further, when the particular acts of the defendant or persons residing with him in the premises (flat) of a storeyed building, said to have caused nuisance or annoyance to the occupiers of adjoining or neighbouring occupiers of tenements (flats) in the very same storeyed building are seen, they cannot make us think that they were not clear acts of nuisance or annoyance envisaged under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act because of the intolerable inconveniences, sufferings, humiliations which must have been caused to the adjoining or neighbouring occupiers, due regard being given to the locality of the storeyed building, the class of the people living in the tenements of the storeyed building and the nature of living to which they were accustomed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 447 of 1982

Decided On: 18.03.1993

Narpatchand A. Bhandari

Vs.

Shantilal Moolshankar Jani and another

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.M. Kasliwal and N.G. Venkatachala, JJ.

Citation:(1993) 3 DCC 351

Print Page

Whether court should grant injunction in case of nuisance of noise and vibrations?

 The nuisance of noise and vibrations detracts
from enjoyment of right of property. Nuisance is such a
tort that the injury caused by it cannot be specifically
repaired and the extent of injury cannot be ascertained or
estimated with accuracy. Such nuisance may be of many
degrees and in many cases like the present the nuisance
may not endanger the life or health and it may only cause
annoyance, discomfort. It is settled law that in view of the
rights of the owner of the property whenever there is
discomfort such nuisance can become actionable.
However, the plaintiff is required to show that discomfort

is of such degree that it would affect not only the plaintiff
but any person irrespective of age, health or position in
life. Thus, if the plaintiff is able to prove that his premises
cannot be comfortably occupied due to nuisance created
by the defendant, the plaintiff can get relief of injunction.
The law discussed in the cases cited supra
shows that the defence that the defendant is doing his
business in proper manner, in accordance with the
conditions of licence, cannot prevent the Court from
granting relief of injunction if the plaintiff is able to prove
that the act of the defendant amounts to actionable
wrong, nuisance. Circumstance that the defendant is not
complying with the conditions laid down in the licence
can be used as additional circumstance against the
defendant. When there is non-compliance of the
conditions of licence and there is also actionable nuisance
it is up to the Court to ascertain whether the nuisance

can be stopped by giving some directions to the defendant
like to take corrective measures, to comply with the
conditions of licence.
15) Whether a private nuisance of aforesaid nature
is actionable or not can be judged by ordinary standards
of persons residing in the neighbourhood. It is up to the
Court to decide as to what type of nuisance can be
tolerated in a particular case. If the noise or vibration of
the machinery affects physical comfort of the plaintiff and
his family members, the Court can grant relief provided
that ordinary standards of person’s life in such locality
are satisfied.
16) In view of the aforesaid position of law the
points for considering the matter like the present one can
be as follows :-
(i) whether use of machinery for saw mill of the horse power
(10 HP) used by the defendant is creating nuisance of noise
and vibrations ?
(ii) whether the nuisance is actionable ?
(iii) whether use is in contravention of conditions of licence
and whether by taking some corrective measures nuisance
can be stopped and the defendant can be allowed to run the
business ?

17) When there is contravention of conditions of
licence it is also upto the authority to take steps.
Surprisingly with regard to the aforesaid admission of the
suggestion that there is no pacca construction, no action
is taken by the authority. In such case also Court can step
in and take action.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Second Appeal No. 223 of 2014

Ismail Musabhai Memon

V
Abdul Aziz Anvar Inamdar,

 CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.

 Dated : 30th September 2015.
Citation: 2016(6)ALLMR 104

Print Page

Whether court can grant temporary mandatory injunction for removal of tray from balcony used for feeding birds?

Grant of temporary mandatory injunction to restrain

nuisance. Whether a defendant is entitled to feed the birds by

placing a tray below her balcony window so as to cause

nuisance to the other members of the Society in which she is

residing ? Whether pending suit for grant of permanent

injunction for causing nuisance by bird feedings, can

temporary mandatory injunction be granted for removal of

tray from balcony used for feeding birds even if there is no

prayer in the suit plaint for removal of tray ?

Held :- Considered that the relief of removal of the tray from

which the birds are fed is incidental to the relief of injunction

sought by the Plaintiffs in main suit and therefore the

Plaintiffs are entitled seek temporary mandatory injunction.

Howsoever, much one may want to feed birds and animals,

the same would obviously have to be done in a manner as not

to cause nuisance to the neighbours or other residents. It is

well settled that a person cannot use his premises for causing

nuisance to his neighbours or other residents. Relied upon

the famous English case of John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v. 8

Thomas Fletcher (1868) LR H 330, wherein it was held that

the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and

collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it

escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so,

is prima faice answerable for all the damage which is the

natural consequence of its escape. In the instant case, there

was enough material at the prima facie stage to indicate that

on account of bird feeding, nuisance is caused to the Plaintiffs

and other members of the Society. The Trial Court has

therefore observed that the Defendant may feed the birds at

some other place where no nuisance is likely to be caused to

anybody.

Bombay High Court

Padma Thakore And Anr vs Dilip Sumanlal Shah And Ors on 12 July, 2016

Bench: R.M. Savant

Read full judgment:Click here
Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 4785

Print Page

Whether Injunction restraining feeding of birds from balcony resulting in nuisance is valid?

Mumbai: Feeding of birds andanimals from your apartmentpremises must be done without causing nuisance to your neighbours and other buildingresidents, the Bombay high court ruled on Tuesday. A metaltray to feed birds, installed by an animal rights activist outside the balcony of her flat in a Worli highrise, will have to go, Justice Rajendra Savant said, dismissing her plea against an interim trial court order to remove it.

Jigeesha Thakore, secretary of the All India Animal Welfare Association who runs a shelter/sterilization centre at the BMC's dog pound at Dhobi Ghat, Mahalaxmi, was dragged to court by her neighbours in the 20-storey Venus housing society over the tray she had installed in her balcony. Dilip and Meena Shah, an elderly couple who live in the flat below, claimed the daily Feeding of birds was causing nuisance and hygiene problems for them.

"Nobody can have a grievance about (Jigeesha's) love for birds and animals. The question is if she is entitled to feed them by placing a tray below her balcony window so as to cause nuisance to others in the society," the judge said, adding, "Howsoever much one may want to feed birds and animals, it would obviously have to be done in a manner as not to cause nuisance to the neighbours or other residents. It is well settled that a person cannot use his premises for causing nuisance to his neighbours or other residents."

The high court held that there was enough material at the prima facie stage to indicate that on account of the bird-feeding, nuisance was caused to other members of the society. "The trial court has, therefore, observed that she may feed the birds at some other place where no nuisance is likely to be caused to anybody. She may consider the suggestion of the court," said the judge. The court has stayed its order for four weeks.
Jigeesha's lawyers claimed that the couple had not raised any objections for more than a decade and had lodged the case only in 2011, with a view to harass her. The Shahs claimed that bird feeding starts around 6.30am daily and is done several times a day. Farsan is fed to crows while pigeonsare fed jowar grains three times a day. The filth as well as bird droppings, which fall in their balcony, had worsened Meena's skin condition and asthma, the couple said in their complaint.

The court said there was substance in the claims made by the Shahs; the society staff had also complained about grains spilling from the tray as well as bird droppings. "It would also have to be presumed that the birds are habituated to being fed from the tray and, therefore, must be flocking there in large numbers. The flocking of the birds obviously has the effect of generating noise on account of flapping of their wings and the humming noise which the pigeons usually make," the judge added, upholding the interim order of the trial court asking Jigeesha to remove the feeding tray from the balcony. A petition challenging the trial court's jurisdiction to hear the case is pending before another bench of the high court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Appeal From Order No. 1240 of 2013 and Civil Application No. 1473 of 2013

Decided On: 12.07.2016

Padma Thakore and Ors.
Vs.
Dilip Sumanlal Shah and Ors.

Coram:R.M. Savant, J.
Citation: 2016(6) MHLJ374

Print Page

Basic principles of Nuisance

The law repeatedly recognises that a man may use his own so as to injure another without committing a nuisance. It is only if such use is unreasonable that it becomes unlawful. The term 'nuisance' is incapable of an exact definition as observed in Winfield on Tort (VI Edition) at p. 536. But its concept is well understood. As the Author has observed it may be described as "unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over, or in connection with it."

Rajasthan High Court

Bhanwar Lal And Anr. vs Dhanraj on 10 November, 1972

Equivalent citations: AIR 1973 Raj 212, 1972 WLN 999

Bench: K Singh

Print Page