1.

SURAYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD VERSUS BIMALENDU

NATH SARKAR LNIND 1964 CAL 57. - Tenancy Laws—Ejectment
—Transfer of Property Act—Section 108—West Bengal Premises
Tenancy Act—Section 13—Appeal arises out of suit for ejectment
after notice to quit and also altering notice of suit on ground that
tenant not entitled to any protection—Whether, tenant entitled for
protection regarding ejectment—Held, tenant said that structure to
be used as kitchen—Tenant never said kitchen required temporarily
—Therefore, evidence of tenant that tenant intended to use
structure as kitchen during continuance of lease, because tenant
requires kitchen and expresses intention to use as same during
term of tenancy—Therefore, kitchen raised must be considered to
be for permanent purpose—Tenant violated Section 108(p) of
Transfer of Property Act—Hence, landlord entitled to decree for
ejectment—Appeal allowed.

— Per A. C. Sen J. (Concurring)

— Tenancy Laws—Ejectment—West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,

1956—Section 13(6)—Held, no doubt that room in question not
intended to be there only temporarily—Intention all along been to
enjoy it permanently along with portion originally demised—Cannot
be said that structure under consideration not of substantial nature
—Hence disputed room can certainly be regarded as permanent
structure. (Permanent Structures) [LN]
2. South Wales Aluminium Co. v. Neath Assessment Committee,
(1943) 2 All ER 587(meaning of Structure) [LN]
3. Purushottam Das Bangur V. Dayanand Gupta [SCC]
4. Ranju V. Rekha Gosh (2007) 14 SCC 81: (2008) 2 CHN
57(SC) [Imp.] [SCC]
5. Shantilal Kesharmal Gandhi V. Prabhakar Balkrshina
Mahanubhav,(2007) 2 SCC 619,
6. Atul Chnadra Lahiry V. Sonata Daw – LNIND 1961 CAL 38-
Tenancy Law—Eviction from premises—West Bengal Premises Rent
Control (Temporary provisions) Act, 1948—Transfer of Property Act
—Section 108—Whether tenant is liable to be evicted—Held, no
doubt that Defendant had made substantial structural alterations
and additions to tenanted premises—Verandah has been converted
into a room by building a wall on one side—Erections are not merely
of a temporary character but are solid pucca structures of an
enduring nature—Constructions are all of bricks and mortar and
cement reinforced concrete—Said construction is permanent
structure within meaning of clause (p) of section 108 of Transfer of
Property Act—Contravention of clause (P) was sufficient to disentitle
tenant to protection of Rent Control Act—Appeal allowed.
7. Allahabad bank V. Sourendra Nath Shaw- LNIND 1996 CAL
8. S gnanasundaram V. Viswanatha Iyer – LNIND 1998 MAD
1457.
9. Shakuntala Devi Darak Vs. M/S Transportrs.
10. Kurian and another V. Job and others (AIR 1975 Kerala
175[LNIND 1975 KER 51]

Sec 56
1)RAMANAND & OTHERS VERSUS DR. GIRISH SONI & ANOTHER
2)EACOMS CONTROL INDIA LIMITED VERSUS BAILEY CONTROLS
COMPANY
3)NTT DOCOMO INC VERSUS TATA SONS LIMITED
4) MEP INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD VERSUS SOUTH DELHI
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
5) M/S HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC. VERSUS VEDANTA
LIMITED & ANOTHER
Sec 73
1)M S MASCON MULTISERVICES & CONSULTANTS PVT LTD VERSUS
BHARAT OMAN REFINERIES LTD
2) ASSTT CIT VERSUS MADHU SILICA P LTD
3) MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED VERSUS HARYANA
TELECOM LIMITED
4). NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORP NBCC LTD VERSUS M
S NATAVARLAL M PATEL
5) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VERSUS M S S K INTERNATIONAL
RICE MILLS GURDASPUR

Damnum Sine Injuria: -

Damnum sine Injuria is a legal maxim which refers to as damages
without injury or damages in which there is no infringement of any
legal right which are vested with the plaintiff. Since no legal right has
been infringed so no action lies in the cases of damnum sine injuria. 
The general principle on which this maxim is based upon is that if one
exercises his common or ordinary rights, within reasonable limits, and
without infringing other’s legal right; such an exercise does not give
rise to an action in tort in favour of that other person. Damages can be
 in any form either in the form of any substantial harm or loss suffered
from respect to the money, comfort, health, etc
 Mayor of Bradford v/s Pickles 1895
Facts -

      Corporation of Bradford was supplying water from its well. Defendant
was having adjacent land to the corporation land wherein there was well.
Defendant was willing to sell his land.  He approached the mayor of
corporation.  Negotiations failed. Defendant dug well in his own land.
thereby cutting the underground supply of water of corporation well this
has caused a loss to corporation because there was no adequate supply of
water to the people of corporation. Plaintiff sued Deft for damages for
malice. 

Held -
 Deft.is not liable, because defendant's act is not wrongful as not
violated legal right or plaintiff.  There is factual malice, ill will digging
well in his own land does not amount to tort.

 Gloucester Grammar school case, 1410 (setting up rival school)

Fact -

    Defendant was school teacher in plaintiff's school.  Because of some

dispute Deft left plaintiff's school and started his own school. As
defendant was very famous amongst students or his teaching,boys from
plaintiffs school left and joined to Deft.School . Plaintiff sued Deft.for
monetary loss caused.

Held -

     Deft not liable. Compensation is no ground of action even though

monetary loss in caused if no legal right is violated of anybody.

NUISANCE: -

Public nuisance caused when due to high noise coming from the night club
caused annoyance to the people who were residing in Brights hotel.

In excess of the natural and ordinary course of enjoyment of the

property.

The usage by the third party should be of out of the natural course of
enjoyment from one party.
Interfering with the ordinary conduct of human existence.

The discomfort should be of such a degree that it would affect an

individual in the locality and people would not be able to put up or
tolerate with the enjoyment.

Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All 86-Mr Gur Prasad Saxena
and another filed a suit against Mr Radhey Shyam and five other
individuals for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
installing and running a flour mill in the premises occupied by the
defendant. Gur Prasad Saxena filed another suit against Radhey Shyam
and five other individuals for a permanent injunction from running and
continuing to run an oil expeller plant. The plaintiff has alleged that the
mill was causing a lot of noise which in turn was affecting the health of
the plaintiff. It was held that by running a flour mill in a residential area,
the defendant was causing a nuisance to the plaintiff and affecting his
health severely.

Res Ipsa Loquitur: -

Res ipsa loquitur, Latin for “the thing speaks for itself,” is a legal theory
wherein the facts and circumstances surrounding an injury allow the court
to presume that negligence has occurred.[2]  In an ordinary negligence
case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty
and that his conduct failed to measure up to that duty.[3]  However,
under res ipsa loquitur, the defendant’s negligence may be presumed and
thus does need not be proven.[4]

(Bright had to suffer a loss when 80 customers gave negative feedback

due to nuisance of luxe and this affected the goodwill of bright).*Stated in
the proposition