A RAMA RAO Vs. MARTHA SEQUEIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendant and the plaintiff are neighbours. The former owns a large piece of land on which he has built cottages which he has let out for rent. For the convenience of the tenants he had put up a latrine in a particular place. This was objected to by the Municipal Council, who directed the demolition of it and the construction of a proper and substantial one for the use of his tenants in the garden in an unobjectionable place about 25 yards to the west of the latrine complained of." (Vide Exhibit II.) The 1st defendant began to put up the latrine close to the house--V of the plaintiff. The site was approved of by the Municipal Chairman. The plaintiff complained against it and appealed to the Collector. The Collector passed orders stating that the site for the latrine was chosen by the Municipal Chairman after consulting both the parties and it could not be changed. This suit was brought for a mandatory injunction to remove the latrine as it is a nuisance to the plaintiff. In both the Courts below plaintiff was successful. They held that the statement in the order of the Collector that the Chairman consulted both the parties was wrong. They further held that the latrice was a nuisance. The District Munsif stated: "The place is an abomination and it is an unmitigated nuisance to the plaintiff." The learned District Judge says: "That the erection of the latrine opposite to and at a distance of only 25 yards from her house causes serious discomfort to, and is likely to endanger the health of the inmates of the plaintiff s house." In the lower Courts the decision was largely based upon "Sayad Jafar Soheb v. Sayad Kadir Rahiman 12 B.634 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 906.

(2.) In second appeal Mr. Sitarama Row has addressed to us a very able and elaborate argument on the question. His main contention was that under Section 207 of the Municipal Act he was bound on the direction of the Municipal Council to put up a latrine, and that otherwise he would have rendered himself liable to be fined for his neglect, and that as he put up the latrine in the place approved of by the Municipal Council through its Chairman, no action lies against him. He also contended that the injunction to remove the building was wrong. Upon the latter question there can be no doubt. All that the plaintiff can complain against is the use of the building as a latrine, for that alone constitutes the nuisance. She has no right to object to the building itself, which can be utilised for other purposes which would not cause any nuisance nor injure the inmates of her house. She was not justified in coming to Court with a prayer for the removal of the building. To that extent the decree must be modified and as we understand that the walls have been pulled down, she should be directed to restore the building at her own expense. The more important question is whether the plaintiff has a right of suit under the circumstances mentioned.

(3.) Very recently we had to consider the liability of a Taluk Board for damages in the execution of a duty enjoined by the Legislature. Krishna Murthi Iyer v. Taluq Board of Mayavaram 50 Ind. Cas. 809 : 9 L.W. 359 : 42 M. 331. We there pointed out that there is a well marked distinction between permissive and obligatory duties; but as the question has been more fully argued on the present occasion, we think it desirable to state succinctly the rules and the limitations applicable to the two branches of duties. If the act is only permitted by the Statute to be done, the Corporation is practically under the same obligations to respect the rights of others as a private individual. The Corporation should so perform the duty as not to injure private rights. [See Attorney General v. Thames Conservators (1862) 1 Hem. & M. 1 : 1 N.R. 121 : 8 Jur. (N.S.) 1203 : 8 L.T. 9 : 11 W.R. 163 : 71 E.R. 1 : 186 B.R. 1 and Madras Railway Company v. Zemindar of Carvetinagaram 11. A. 364 at p : 384 : 14 B.L.R. 209 (P.C.) : 22 W.R. 279 : 3 Sar. P.C.J. 391.] Further the duty must be done without negligence and with care. See Khagendra Nath Mittra v. Bhupendra Narayan Dutt 8 Ind. Cas. 530 : 38 C. 296 : 15 C.W.N. 316 : 11 Cr.L.J. 665, There is no distinction between misfeasance and non feasance in such oases. See Canadian Pacific Railway v. Parke (1899) A.C. 535 : 68 L.J.P.C. 89 : 48 W.R. 118 : 81 L.T. 127 : 15 T.L.R. 427. The position of a Corporation which is bound to carry out certain duties is different. In enjoining the performance of them the Legislature contemplates the fact that private individuals will have to submit to a certain amount of infraction of their rights. The principle is that where the Legislature directs a duty to be done, it must be deemed to have weighed the balance of convenience between public benefit and private rights and to have laid down that the latter should give way to the former. See Geddis v. Proprietors of Bann Reservoir (1878) 3 A.C. 430 at p. 456, L.B. & S.C. By., Co. v. Truman (1886) 11 A.C. 45 : 55 L.J. Ch. 354 : 54 L.T. 250 : 34 W.R. 657 : 50 J.P. 388, West v. Bristol Trommays Co. (1908) 2 K.B. 14 : 77 L.J.K.B. 684 : 99 L.T. 264 : 72 J.P. 243 : 6 L.C.R. 609 : 24 T.L.R. 478 and Westminster Corporation v. London and North Western By. (1905) A.C. 426 : 72 L.J. Ch. 629 : 69 J.P. 425 : 54 W.R. 129 : 93 L.T. 143 : 21 T.L.R. 686 : 3 L.G.R. 1120. But the private individual is not altogether without remedy even in such oases. If the work has been done negligently or carelessly the Corporation will be liable. See Hammersmith & Ry. Co. v. Brand (1869 4 H.L. 171 : 38 L.J.Q.B. 265 : 18 W.R. 12 : 21 L.T. 238 and Thompson v. Eccles Corporation (1905) 1 K.B. 110 : 74 L.J.K.B. 130 : 69 T.P. 45 : 53 W.R. 211 : 91 L.T. 750 : 21 T.L.R. 49 : 3 L.G.R. 20. The Corporation will also be liable where it acts maliciously and with a wanton desire to injure private rights. But it is not liable for mere nonfeasance. The question now is under which of the two categories we should place the erection by the 1st defendant of the latrine ordered by the Municipality. Section 207 runs The Municipal Council may by a notice require, etc" Mr. Sitarama Rao drew our attention to Section 264 (a) which contains the penal clause. He also referred to Section 35, which enables the Governor in Council to suspend the operations of the resolutions passed under the Act if the execution of such resolutions is likely to cause obstruction, injury or annoyance to any person lawfully employed or danger to human life, health, or safety. The learned Vakil argued from these provisions that the duty coast upon the Municipality must be regarded as obligatory. We are unable to agree with him. Prima facie the provision of a latrine is for the convenience of the inmates of the place, and has no doubt a bearing on the health of the town. But a direction to build at a particular place without reference to the surroundings cannot be said to be obligatory on the Municipality. Under very similar circumstances it was held in Vernon v. Vestry of St. James, Westminster (1881) 16 Ch. 449 : 50 L.J. Ch. 81 : 44 L.T. 299 : 89 W.R. 222, to which Mr. Shenai drew our attention, that the Corporation would be liable in damages to a private individual. In that case Malins, V.C, stated: "Therefore, I repeat, if the question before me were simply whether they were right in selecting the place, and whether one place or another was better, I should be bound to decide that the vestry are the sole Judges as to what the situation should be. But great as the powers of the vestries under the Act are, they are not absolute, and vestries are, like all other public bodies, liable to be controlled by this Court, if they proceed to exercise their powers in an unreasonable manner, whether they are induced to do so by improper motives or from error of judgment." Further on the V.C. says: "it is clear that the Court has power to entertain such suits, and that these vestries must not execute these powers in such a manner as to create a nuisance when the object of the Act is to remove nuisances." The case was taken up to the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice James said: "if the erection in question were made by a private landowner on his own soil and freehold, it would seem to be beyond all question a nuisance so grave and so serious that the neighbours would be entitled to apply to the Court for an injunction to restrain it. The question is whether the fact that the thing is done, not by a private owner on his private soil, but by the parish vestry on a place that is said to be a public highway, makes any difference." The learned Lord Justice then quoted Section 6, which is very similar to Section 207 of the District Municipalities Act and proceeded: "trimafacie nobody is authorized to commit a nuisance and nobody is to be held so authorized under an Act of Parliament unless it ap. pears from express words or by necessary implication that the act was to be done or might be done notwithstanding its tending to the creation of a nuisance." Lord Justice Cotton said: "Therefore the mere fact that an urinal is authorized to be erected does not necessarily or by necessary implication give parliamentary power to do it if it is a nuisance." Lord Justice Lush said: That if the inconvenience is only to the public and there is no special injury to a particular individual no action would lie." This case is strong authority for the position that although the Municipal Act has authorized the Council to direct the location of latrine in a particular place, the work should not be carried out so as to affect injuriously private interests more than is necessary. In Sellors v. Matlock Bath Local Board (1885) 14 Q.B.D. 928 : 52 L.T. 762 the same principle was enunciated. In Rapier v. London Tramways Company (1893) 2 Ch. 588 : 63 L.J. Ch. 36 : 2 R. 448 : 69 L.T. 361 also this principle was affirmed. It seems to U3, therefore, that in the contemplation of the Legislature the power given to the Municipality to supervise the erection by a private individual of a latrine must be regarded as a permissive obligation which should be exercised without unnecessary detriment to private rights and without creating unreasonable nuisance. The evidence of the Medical Officer is to the effect that all latrines in Mangalore are to a certain extent a nuisance. This being so, their erection must be detrimental to some private right.