On 10th December, 1981, the Municipal companymissioner passed an order that a tea stall licence may be given as a very special case and number to be treated as a precedent.
For a permanent Injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 2 from allowing the suit structures to companytinue to remain in the vicinity of the Plaintiffs said properties.
For a Mandatory Order and Injunction that the defendants do forthwith remove the suit structure along with the paraphernalia, including illegal electric and water companynections and the things and articles inside and around the suit structure, including those that are affixed, annexed and attached to the said property.
for a tea stall.
Respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction with the following prayers For a Declaration that the suit structure put up by the 3rd defendant is an unauthorized structure and also an encroachment on the plaintiffs rights and property.
The appellant companytinued to pursue the matter regarding water and electiricity companynections.
After framing issues and recording evidence of the parties the trial Court vide judgment dated 30th August, 1988, decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent No.1.
The objected structure occupies about one third of the width of Jambulwadi lane.
If there was permanent embedding, the same was directed to be removed.
Washing of the utensils takes place on the road.
The Ward Officer put up a numbere to the Superintendent of Licences stating that the appellant was allowed a tolerated sugarcane crusher and had asked for permission to put up electric power motor which request was number permissible, therefore, the appellant wanted to companyvert the sugarcane juice stall into a tea stall.
The four sides of the structure are embedded in the companycrete flooring on the road.
These appeals were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court resulting in the suit of Respondent plaintiff being decreed.
For a permanent Injunction restraining the defendant Nos.
In an appeal filed against the said judgment, the matter was remanded back to the trial Court.
Two appeals were filed against the decree passed by the trial Court one by the present appellant i.e. the owner of the tea stall while the other was filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the Commissioner of the Corporation.
It is also admitted that customers enjoy the facilities provided by the tea stall while standing sitting on the road.
The Ward Officer thereafter put up a numbere supporting the case of the appellant .
It was reported by the Ward Officer that the stall would be put up on a footpath and it would be at the dead end of the lane.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 23rd/26th April, 1993 accepted the appeals and dismissed the suit.
Rain water falling on the roof of the structure splashes on the wall of the building of Respondent No.1 which damages the wall as well as the paint on the wall of the building.
So far as the legal aspect of the case is companycerned it relates to interpretation of Section 313 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Proceeding on the basis of this mis representation, the Municipal Commissioner sanctioned the request companytained in the numbere of the Ward Officer vide letter dated 17.2.1982.
The trial companyrt again passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff on 9th September, 1991.
The structure is at the junction of Jambulwadi road with Kalbadevi lane whereas the dead end of the Jambulwadi road is at some distance.
1 and 2 from permitting or sanctioning and allowing any Shed or Stall structure to be put up and to remain in the vicinity of the plaintiffs said properties.
Respondent No.1 is the owner of the building on that companyner.
Rest of the matter relates to findings of fact arrived at by the High Court which do number call for interference in these Civil Appeals.
The appellant thereafter sought permission for a tea stall in place of the sugarcane crusher in November, 1981.
The sugarcane crusher occupied space of 1mtr.
There is numberfootpath at the Jambulwadi lane.
The tea stall set up by the appellant on the street abuts the building owned by Respondent No.1.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and its Commissioner were impleaded as Defendant Nos.1 2 while Defendant No.3 in the suit is appellant herein who is running the disputed tea stall.
Respondent plaintiff filed Letters Patent Appeals against the decision of the learned Single Judge.
Briefly, the facts are that the appellant is running a tea stall for which he has put up a structure on the street at the junction of Kalbadevi Road and Jambulwadi Lane.
It was also ordered that the stall has been allowed temporarily as a removable structure and it cannot be allowed to be permanently embedded on the road.
The workers of the tea stall bathe and wash their clothes on the road itself in front of the house of Respondent No.1.
JUDGMENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.4423 OF 1995 ARUN KUMAR, J. These appeals are directed against a judgment and decree passed by the High Court in Letters Patent Appeals No.110 of 1993, 111 of 1993 and 112 of 1993.
Both these statements were untrue in as much as neither the stall was on the footpath number it was at the dead end of the lane.
Thus what was permitted was a tea stall of the size of 1 mtr.
