Question

Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:

1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
3. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
4. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.

Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligences and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?

विकल्प

• The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead.

• Yes, the large tower had interrupted their television reception, and caused private nuisance - for loss of enjoyment - and remuneration for their wasted television license fee, from the time their signal had been impaired.

• No, it cannot constitute private nuisance but the claimants can claim damages for loss of television signals.

• Yes, the respondent's conduct was unreasonable because the act of building the tower caused the impairment of enjoyment of the land.

Answer 1

The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead.

Explanation:

Points to be looked into to decide on the given case  are   
1. M.G. LTD was in no way unlawfully interfering with the  use and enjoyment of land by others, 
2. The fact that the tower built by him was causing a disturbance in television signals was not his fault, and   
3. The company could not reasonably foresee that the tower built by it will cause disruption in television signals.  In the light of the above points "The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead." is correct.