THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1121 OF 2010 Dated:08.07.2011 Between: Mohiddin Tambi .. Appellant And Abdul Khadar Jilani and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1121 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the first defendant in O.S.No.20 of 2000. The suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, for permanent injunction, against the appellant and respondents 3 and 4, restraining them from running the trade of cleaning, storage and transportation of skins and hides at the residential locality of Jampeta Market, Rajahmundry. The suit was decreed on 06.06.2006. The first appellate Court, namely the Court of the I Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, confirmed the same on 23.07.2010 in A.S.No.109 of 2007. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. The parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are residents of Kondapallivari Street owning residential houses. They are advocates and members of Rajahmundry Bar Association. Defendants 1 to 3 are owners of skin godowns, where the process of cleaning, storage and transportation of skins and hides is carried on. In the process, the defendants are also boiling fat of cows, buffaloes and oxen. This has become hazardous, emission of foul smell and causing inconvenience and poses a threat to the health of the public. Therefore, the defendants should be injuncted from carrying on such business. The first defendant filed written statement admitting that the plaintiffs are residents of Kondapallivari Street. They, however, denied the plaint allegations and contended that when the Municipal Authorities did not renew the licences issued to them, they approached the High Court by filing W.P.No.514 of 2000 and that the High Court directed the Municipality not to take any coercive steps against them. They also alleged that the father of the plaintiffs leased out the premises to them and when the tenants refused to hike the rents, they filed the suit for permanent injunction. The trial Court framed the relevant issue. Three witnesses on each side were examined as plaintiffs and defendants. Exs.A1 to A5 and B1 to B7 were also marked. After considering the evidence, the trial Court recorded a finding that the shop and godown run by the defendants is causing inconvenience and health hazardous and, accordingly, injuncted them holding that the plaintiffs have proved the balance of convenience is in their favour. The first appellate Court confirmed the same. The counsel for the appellant would contend that a suit for injuncting any activity allegedly polluting atmosphere would not lie in view of the provisions of Section 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) which is a proper remedy for the plaintiffs. Nextly, he contended that the defendants were carrying on business much prior to the purchase of the properties by the plaintiffs and therefore balance of convenience cannot be said to be in their favour. In common law, a person has a right to enjoy his property in whatsoever manner. But while doing so, the owner of the property cannot cause any damage or inconvenience to the neighbours or users of the street. If any such inconvenience or damage is caused or pollution is created, the aggrieved person can avail any of the remedies available under common law or statutory law. The mere fact that the plaintiffs could have approached the Executive Magistrate for nuisance under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is not a ground to deny the remedy to the plaintiffs. The other plea that the prior occupation of the property by the defendants would tilt the balance of convenience is unacceptable. Whatever the business activity carried on by a person cannot create any environmental pollution which in the long run has irresistible adverse effect on the residents. The Courts below have clearly recorded the finding that the shop and godown run by the appellant/first defendant is causing inconvenience and health hazardous and therefore no interference is called for in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 08.07.2011 KH