Nuisance, according to the most widely accepted meaning, is an unlawful interference with a person’s use and enjoyment of land, or of some claim over, or in connection with it, as defined by Bermingham. As a result, it is an injury or inconvenience suffered by a person while using his property as a result of another person’s unreasonably using his own property in a way that harms the former.
Mr. A, for example, establishes a cement business on his own land. Mr. B’s neighbour Mr. B is both disturbed and polluted by the Factory’s massive noises and dust. Mr. A has committed Nuisance by erecting a factory on his property and interfering with Mr. B’s ability to use his home to its full potential.
“Nuisance is anything done to the injury or annoyance of another’s lands, tenements, and not amounting to trespass,” according to Stephens.
“The wrong of Nuisance consists in causing or allowing the escape of any deleterious thing from his land or from elsewhere into land in possession of the plaintiff without lawful justification, e.g. water, fumes, smoke, gas, noise, heat, vibration, electricity, disease, germs, animals,” writes another Jurist Salmond.
Essential Elements of Nuisance-
For making an act of Nuisance actionable under the law of torts the following essentials must be satisfied-
a) Wrongful Act by the Defendant-
The first requirement for a Nuisance Action to be brought is for the Defendant to commit a wrongful act. This could include any activity that, on the surface, appears to be illegal and unreasonable in the view of a cautious person. Caveat– Though the Plaintiff is overly sensitive and perceives the Defendant’s action to be unreasonable as a result of his sensitivity, even if the activity is generally reasonable to a prudent man, the case for Nuisance cannot be brought.
b) Damage/Loss/Inconvenience to the Plaintiff-
The second need is that the Plaintiff suffers a substantial loss or inconvenience. Due to the plaintiff’s own sensitivity, the maxim “De minimis non curat lex” comes into play, which states that the law will not consider trifles or little damages alleged by the plaintiff. However, if the defendant’s action results in the plaintiff’s Legal Right being harmed, annoyance is triggered.
Case Laws:
In Ushaben V. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant over the screening of the film “Jai Santoshi Maa,” alleging that it hurts the religious sentiments of a particular Hindu community. The court dismissed the plea, ruling that religious sentiments were not an actionable wrong and that the Plaintiff was free to not watch the film again.
As a result, it was determined that in order to recover damages for Nuisance, the Interference must be in a state of continuous wrongdoing.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.