Name - Pragathi S
USN - 1MS16AT043
Class - 8T
CASE STUDY ON EASEMENT RIGHTS
Easements Rights involves the owner enjoying the benefits of the adjacent
property without which he does not posses.
CASE STUDY
ITC Ltd. V/s Chowringhee Residency Private Limited
A law suit based on the easement rights was filed by Nandalal Bose Sarani on
behalf of ITC Ltd. upon the ITC Ltd. V/s Chowringhee Residency Private Limited. as
they are allegedly accused of interfering with the natural light entering on the
western side of Fountain Court.
Fountain Court has a 5 storied, 67 feet 6 inches tall building within the premises
was constructed in the year 1956. Onto the western side of this structure there
was a a similar structure of 67 feet and 6 inches. There was no hindrance to the
the property in the initial days.
However, in 2013, Chowringhee Residency Private Limited demolished the existing
building and had proposed to come up with a structure which had 60 stories and
was 240m high. This might turn out to be an act of interference with the amount
of natural light falling upon the western facade of the building in Fountain Court.
Based on the suit there are standard assessments to be made to calculate the
sufficient amount of natural light entering into the building to create a
comfortable ambience. For this a 50/50 rule was followed. According to this rule,
0.2% of sky factor is required based on the proposed and constructed dimensions
of each room. Any percentage below 0.2% of sky factor would be considered as
insufficient lighting. And in some cases having more than 0.2% sky factor could
also cause insufficient lighting based on other factors.
To add on further to the information the distance between the proposed building
and the boundary of Fountain Court was 16.75m and the total lateral distance
between the buildings was stated to be 20m.
Providing all these facts, the petitioner requested for a grant of injunction as to
utilise his rights and to control the construction process happening in the adjacent
side of the accused.
EXAMPLES
For a situation of halfway reduction of light a Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court as right on time as in 1889 opined that the offended party ought to be
adequately remunerated by harms and granted harms likewise. (Dhunjibhoy
Cowasji Umrigae Vs. Lisboa ILR 1889 (13) Bom 252). In Lakshmi Narain Banerjee
Vs. Tara Prosanna Banerjee (1904) ILR 31 Cal 944, a Division Bench of this Court
allowed an order for a situation griping of break of easement directly by
overhanging parts of a tree and infiltration of the dirt by a developing system of
roots.
In Regan Vs. Paul Properties Ltd. and Ors. 2007 it was demonstrated by the
proprietor of a Maisonette that two properties which were being worked inverse
his at a separation of 12.8 meters and including five stories came about in
considerable hardship of light to the offended party's premises. A request of
directive was given. Considerably following hundred years of Shelfer, the Court of
Appeal kept up that it was constantly a matter of attentiveness to be utilized by a
court whether to give a directive or not.
Another test seems to have been included the instance of HKRUK II (CHC) Limited
Vs. Heaney (2010) EWHC 2245 (Ch), a Chancery seat judgment. The court is to
evaluate whether the litigant was determining benefit out of the exchange and
which as I would like to think implies benefit significantly in the wake of paying
harms.
The dicta of Shelfer was trailed by a Single Judge of this Court in Parma Singh Vs.
Tulsi Charan Goswami 41 CWN 794. Coventry and Ors. Versus Lawrence and Anr.
(2014) UKSC 13 is the most recent choice of the English court regarding the
matter. It was chosen by the United Kingdom Supreme Court.
Based on the above examples appealing for a grant of injunction seemed possible.
However, there were certain ambiguities in this case.
The only evidence presented by the petitioner was the lightening assessment
made by an expert. There are other factors which are associated with the lighting
which is not sufficient and looked into. The Eastern, Southern and Western sides
do not have any lighting hindrance.
The details provided by the defendant also seems insufficient. The only data that is
provided is that the proposed building is 60 stories and 240m high. There are no
details pertaining to further alternative systems and techniques adopted within
the building which might probably reduce the interference with lighting.
The sanctioning of such a plan by the government is not considered to be a
superposition on the easement right. Only the claim of depreciation of natural
lighting by the accused is considered to be a part of this easement rights suit.
Hence the accussed must be provided with a chance to alter the design to suit the
requirements based on the petitioner. But under no case will there be a grant of
injunction to the petitioner.
