JUDGMENT P.C. Borooah, J. On June 23, 1979 Sm, Latika Roy and four other residents of premises No. 8/2, Mandeville Gardens, Calcutta flied a petition of complaint in the Court of the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta against Sm, Rekha Das Gupta and others of premises No. 8/1, Mandeville Gardens, as well as the Corporation of Calcutta under S. 583 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (hereinafter 'the act') alleging inter alia, that Sm. Das Gupta had in the passage of her house between premises No. 8/1 and 8/2, Mandeville Gardens installed in an unauthorised structure a diesel operated generator in order to produce electricity for the running of lights, fans, air conditioners etc. during the periods of load-shedding, and the unbearably loud noise of the generator and the noxious fumes and smoke emitted by it have affected the health and disturbed the sleep and tranquility of the residents of premises No. 8/2, Mandeville Gardens. Prayer was made for necessary directions so that the operation of the generator should be stopped as it's running amounted to a nuisance, and the permanent structure wherein the generator was housed pulled down as it was an unauthorised construction. 2. Sri S.K. Das Gupta, Municipal Magistrate, Third Court, Calcutta by an order dated September 12, 1979 held that the running of a generator under an unauthorised construction in a narrow passage between two premises is an act of nuisance as defined in S. 5(50) of the Act because of the sound and smoke it produces affecting the neighbouring inhabitants. The learned Magistrate further held that the power of directing demolition was given to a Magistrate under S. 584 of the Act, which was independent of S. 583, and did not come into force until an order made under S. 583(2) of the Act was violated. 3. The learned Magistrate accordingly allowed the application in part and directed the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 not to run and to remove the generator from the passage in between the two premises within seven days of the order. The Corporation authorities were also directed to take necessary step, under the Act so that the order is complied with. This order has been challenged by both the parties in two separate Rules, which are disposed of by this judgment. 4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sm. The Corporation authorities were also directed to take necessary step, under the Act so that the order is complied with. This order has been challenged by both the parties in two separate Rules, which are disposed of by this judgment. 4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sm. Latika Roy and others, who are the petitioners in Criminal Revision Case No. 1773 of 1979, have prayed for some clarification in the learned Magistrate's order so that the opposite parties are prevented from installing the generator in some other portion of Premises No. 8/1, Mandeville Gardens. 5. Mr. Balai Chandra Ray appearing for Smt. Rekha Das Gupta in Criminal Rev. Case No. 2072 of 1979 has also opposed the first Rule. He has contended that the impugned order should be struck down, as the learned magistrate has not completed the enquiry in accordance with the provisions of S. 583(2) of the Act. Mr. Ray further contended that in any event his clients cannot be prevented from running the generator if it can be made noiseless and smokeless by the attachment of device. 6. Load-shedding has become a part of the daily life of a resident of this metropolis. It is a suffering that has to be endured; but the suffering should not be allowed to be aggravated by the indiscriminate and uncontrolled running of generators which make a loud noise or emit smoke or causing a nuisance to people living nearby. Where it may be essential to run a generator, as in a hospital or nursing home or in a multi-storied building for operating does not amount to a nuisance within the meaning of S. 5(50) of the Act. 7. Coming to the instant case, the learned Magistrate on consideration of the written statements, affidavits and photographs filed before him and after hearing the parties came to his finding for which he has given detailed reasons. It is not Mr. Roy's case that the generator, which had been installed in Premises No. 8/1. Mandeville Gardens, is free from noise and smoke. Its operation in a narrow passage between the two buildings is bound to cause annoyance to and disturb the rest and sleep of the residents of the adjoining premises No. 8/2. The running of the generator will as such amount to a nuisance within the meaning of S. 5(50) of the Act. Mandeville Gardens, is free from noise and smoke. Its operation in a narrow passage between the two buildings is bound to cause annoyance to and disturb the rest and sleep of the residents of the adjoining premises No. 8/2. The running of the generator will as such amount to a nuisance within the meaning of S. 5(50) of the Act. The learned Magistrate's order and his reasons cannot therefore be assailed. 8. As regards Mr. Ray's contention that his client's should not be prevented from running the generator if it can be made noiseless and smoke free, we make it dear that this order will not prevent Sm. Rekha Das Gupta from operating a generator in premises No. 8/1, Mandeville Gardens if it is free from noise and smoke and its installation in any part of the said premises does not disturb the rest and sleep or cause any annoyance to or affect the health of the residents of the adjoining premises or it is otherwise not a nuisance within meaning of S. 5(50) of the Act. 9. In regard to Mr. Ray's submissions about an enquiry not having been held in accordance with the provisions of S. 583(2) of the Act, the section requires that after receipt of a complaint under S. 583(1) of the Act the Magistrate will make such enquiry as he thinks fit. In the instant case the learned Magistrate passed the order in question on consideration of the materials before him. He did not consider any more material to be necessary in coming to his decision. No further enquiry as such was called for. The Rules are accordingly disposed of. D.C. Chakraborti J: I agree. Rules disposed of.