- (1.) The appellant is defendant No. 1 in Civil Suit No. 78/98 instituted by the plaintiff respondent No. 1 M/s Sunmoon Printers Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur for the reliefs of mandatory and perpetual injunction for ordering the defendant No. 1 appellant to make construction on the lines of construction already existing on his industrial plot A-11 described in para 2 situated in Industrial Estate, Jodhpur and if permission is granted by the defendant No. 2 to raise construction according to new rules, then to raise the construction leaving proper set backs as per rules and at a height by maintaining an angle of 22 degree of his shed. The defendant No. 1 may be further restrained from obstructing the passage of light, air and sun shine to the plaintiff's industrial plot No. A-12. The defendant No. 2 Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation, Jodhpur is respondent No. 2 in this appeal. The respondent No. 1 also moved an application under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with S. 151, CPC for temporary injunction. The learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur allowed the application by order dated 17-8-98 whereby the appellant was restrained from making any infringement in the right of the plaintiff to receive light, air and sun shine from the north side of his plot; to raise construction with permission and in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by respondent No. 2. The appellant was also ordered to submit the map of the proposed construction to respondent No. 2. the respondent No. 2 was directed to accord sanction for construction in accordance with its rules and regulations after keeping in view the plaintiff's right to receive light, air and sun shine from the north side of his plot. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(2.) The plaintiff has stated the facts in his application that State Government introduced the scheme for industrial development in the year 1960 for allotment of industrial plots with constructed sheds at the angle of 22 degree. The defendant purchased in auction industrial plot No. A-11 in the north of the plaintiff's industrial plot No. A-12 from respondent No. 2. The industrial Plot No. 12 is owned by the respondent No. 1 in which he has installed printing press and he is doing his printing works. The construction of the shed in the plaintiff's industrial plot is maintaining 22 degree angle. It receives light and air from northern side. Before purchasing industrial plot by the appellant, the shed existed there with set backs. Now, after purchasing industrial plot No. A-11, the appellant demolished the shed and started construction of the basement illegally because basement is not allowed according to the lease conditions. The appellant is bent upon to construct a multi storey building unauthorisedly on the industrial plot which will obstruct the light, air and sun shine to his shed from the north side required to run his printing press and offset printing. The plaintiff is getting light and sun shine from the north side for the last 35 years. He has acquired a right of easement. The defendant also does not have any right to raise construction without leaving set back 10 ft. wide in three sides. The respondent No. 1, therefore, prayed for the reliefs accordingly in his suit and temporary injunction as stated above.
(3.) The appellant stated in his reply that the sheds were constructed by the State Government for keeping the cost of construction as low as possible and it has no nexus with the provision of light from the north side to the adjacent shed. The shed of the defendant's plot A-11 and the shed of the respondent No. 1 on A-12 are separated by a common wall in which there are no ventilation or window for light and air. The appellant admitted that he started construction of the under-ground because it is not prohibited by any of the lease conditions. He is constructing according to the rules and the directions by the respondent No. 2. He is not bound to leave set back in three sides because the plaintiff has also not left any set back on his plot. The construction of his shed is on the common wall. The construction by the defendant will not obstruct the passage of light and air. No light and air is required by the plaintiff for his off set printing work. Plaintiff has not acquired any easement of light and air as claimed by him. In the end, it has been stated that the appellant has a legal right to raise construction on his plot and the suit has been filed merely to harass and cause loss to him.;