Easement - 'Diminution of this light so as to affect the ordinary purposes of inhabitancy or business of the tenement would confer a right of action on a person.'

Very recently, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in ITC Limited vs Chowringhee Residency Private Limited explained the principle of easement rights through diminution of light and as to when it shall result in actionable nuisance. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted herein below;

"If one reads the cases cited by both learned counsel, one would find that the thread running through the English authorities have also run through the Indian authorities. In Paul Vs. Robson reported in AIR 1914 PC 45, Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai Danad Vs. Purushottam reported in AIR 1971 SC 1878 and In Re: Reba Samanta reported in 1993 ILR 1 Cal 317, the Courts approved the ratio of the all the opinions taken together in Colls Vs. Home and Colonial Stores. Infringement of easement rights through diminution of light must result in actionable nuisance. In all the three cases it was held that a person had a right to enjoyment of ancient lights. Diminution of this light so as to affect the ordinary purposes of inhabitancy or business of the tenement would confer a right of action on a person. The occupation must become uncomfortable.  

 Jotindra Mohan Mitter Vs. Probodh Kumar Dutt reported in AIR 1932 Cal 249 held that an easement right exercised openly though not consciously conferred those rights upon a person.   

Rau Rama Atkile Vs. Tukaram Nana Atkile reported in AIR 1939 Bom 149 held that rights acquired by prescription like right of light could not be taken away by the sanction of a building plan in favour of another. The common law, unless expressly taken away by statute continues to be applicable. This was stated in Wheeler and another V. J J Saunders Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1995 (2) All England Reports 697 . If a statute directly authorised the construction then the words of the statute prevailed over the common law. But when the planning permission was granted or sanction to a building plan made, the common law still applied with full force. This was laid down with emphasis in amalakanta De and Ors. Vs. Radhaballav Kundu and Ors. reported in 84 CWN 624."