vustudents
04-29-2012, 06:34 PM
(1) Nature of right: At common law the owner of land has no natural right to light for everyone may build upon or utilize his own land, regardless of the fact that his doing so involves an interference with the light which would otherwise reach the land and buildings of another person. The easement of light is acquired in augmentation of the ordinary rights incident to the ownership and enjoyment of land. It may be defined as a right which a person may acquired as the owner or occupier of a building with windows or apertures, to prevent the owner or occupier of an adjoining piece of land from building or placing upon the latter’s land anything which has the effect of illegally obstructing or obscuring the light coming to the building of the owner of the easement. 1904 AC 179. The owner of a dominant tenement does not obtain by his easement a right to all the light and air he has enjoyed. He obtain a right so much of it as will suffice for the ordinary purpose of inhabitancy or as might be reasonably required or comfortable occupation. He is not entitled to the excess even if he has enjoyed it in the past. An infraction of an easementary right of light and air becomes actionable only when the obstruction amounts to a nuisance. 1978 Cut. LJ 39. Rights of plaintiffs regarding light and air in respect of their houses, prima facie were already nullified by structure raised by the defendant prior to alleged rights of light and air was infructuous. 1982 CLC 49.
(2) Right to breeze: Under the English law there is no right to a free flow of air either of working a windmill or as a matter of personal comfort of dwellers in a house. This view has been adapted in the case of Delhi and London Bank v. Hemlal Dutt. 14 Cal. 830, wherein it is remarked that neither the easements act 1882, nor the English Prescription act alter the nature or enlarges the extent of the right of easement and held that there was no such right to the uninterrupted flow of south breeze as such. Though the Calcutta High Court rightly adapted this rule of English law its remark as regards the easements act 1882 is obiter dicta as the act not being in force in Bengal had in any case no application to this case. As already remarked in the discussion of ornamentation and prospect the explanation of this section seems to introduce new kinds of easements which may fall within the meaning not yet judicially determined, of the words, “any possible convenience, remote advantages or a mere amenity”.
(2) Right to breeze: Under the English law there is no right to a free flow of air either of working a windmill or as a matter of personal comfort of dwellers in a house. This view has been adapted in the case of Delhi and London Bank v. Hemlal Dutt. 14 Cal. 830, wherein it is remarked that neither the easements act 1882, nor the English Prescription act alter the nature or enlarges the extent of the right of easement and held that there was no such right to the uninterrupted flow of south breeze as such. Though the Calcutta High Court rightly adapted this rule of English law its remark as regards the easements act 1882 is obiter dicta as the act not being in force in Bengal had in any case no application to this case. As already remarked in the discussion of ornamentation and prospect the explanation of this section seems to introduce new kinds of easements which may fall within the meaning not yet judicially determined, of the words, “any possible convenience, remote advantages or a mere amenity”.