Arun Kumar, J. - (1.)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. So far as the legal aspect of the case is concerned it relates to interpretation of S. 313 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Rest of the matter relates to findings of fact arrived at by the High Court which do not call for interference in these Civil Appeals.
(2.)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. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the building on that corner. The tea stall set up by the appellant on the street abuts the building owned by Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction with the following prayers :
"(a) 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.

(b) For a Mandatory Order and injunction that the defendants do forthwith remove the suit structure along with the paraphernalia, including illegal electric and water connections and the things and articles inside and around the suit structure, including those that are affixed, annexed and attached to the said property.

(c) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from allowing the suit structures to continue to remain in the vicinity of the Plaintiffs said properties.

(d) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 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."

(3.)The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and its Commissioner were impleaded as Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 while defendant No. 3 in the suit is appellant herein who is running the disputed tea stall. It has come in evidence of the appellant himself that the size of the structure is about 10ft. x 9ft. having a height of 10 ft. It has a pucca flooring of paved tiles. It has rolling shutters on two sides. It has tin roof. On the side of the roof of the structure is installed a water storage tank. The structure has water and electricity connections. It has provision for drainage. The four sides of the structure are embedded in the concrete flooring on the road. It is also admitted that customers enjoy the facilities provided by the tea stall while standing/sitting on the road. Washing of the utensils takes place 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. The objected structure occupies about one-third of the width of Jambulwadi lane. 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. Respondent No.1 is also aggrieved by the fact that he cannot repair his building from the side where the structure in question exists because no scaffolding can be put there. Besides this Respondent No.1 plaintiff alleged that the stall is a health and fire hazard because kerosene pressure stove is being used in the stall for making tea and coffee.