JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - A suit was filed by one Mohammad Amin, who is the plaintiff appellant No. 1 in this appeal for an in junction restraining the Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad, from interfering with Mohammad Amins possession over the Gumti and from dismantling the same. The Nagar Mahapalika was made defendant No. 1 in the suit and Waqf Tazia Kalan, Allahabad was made as defendant No. 2 in the suit. In the present appeal, Waqf Tazia Kalan Ailahabad, who was defendant No. 2 in the suit, has also been made as appellant No. 2. 2. The case set up by Mohammad Amin was that he is the owner of shop (Gumti) in suit, situate in Mohalla Johnstonganj, Allahabad. The land over which the said gumti stands is owned by the Waqf Tazia Kalan, Allahabad, and the Waqf Tazia Kalan Allahabad has let out the gomti in dispute to Mohammad Amin. It was alleged that this shop had been let out earlier also by the Waqf Tazia Kalan to various tenants since long and on 2nd January, 1963, the tenancy was obtained by Mohammad Amin from the Waqf as running concern of machines from Tahauvar Hussain no Rs. 1,400. The Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, without any notice, sent its employees on 16th October, D65, to demolish the shop, and consequently, the present suit was filed for injunction restraining the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, from interfering with the plaintiff appellants possession over the land in dispute. 3. The Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, contested the suit on the allegations that the plaintiffs is not the owner of the shop in dispute and that the land is not owned by the Tazia Kalan, that it formed part of the land over which the public in general have a right of passage and access and have been passing all along since scores of years and the said street vests in and belongs to the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. It was further alleged that the land has been levelled, channelled and repaired by the Nagar Mahapalika out of its funds and it is lighted by the Nagar Mahapalika and the lane as we 1 as the drain have been constructed by the Nagar Manapalika. It is also being cleaned by the Nagar Mahapalika. The shop in question is an encroachment on the said public street made recently and, as such, no injunction can be issued against the Nagar Mahapalika. It is also being cleaned by the Nagar Mahapalika. The shop in question is an encroachment on the said public street made recently and, as such, no injunction can be issued against the Nagar Mahapalika. So far as the Waqf Tazia Kalan is concerned, it admitted the allegations made in the plaintiff and admitted that the Waqf is the owner of the land in dispute of which the plaintiff appellant is the tenant and the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, had nothing to do with land adjacent to the shop in dispute. 4. The trial court by its judgment dated 11th August, 1970 decreed the suit holding that the disputed shop belongs to Waqf Tazia Kalan and it has not formed part of the public lane belonging, to the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, filed a Civil Appeal in the lower appellate court. The appeal was decided by the appellate court on 22nd August, 1974, The judgment of the trial court was set aside and the appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. Against the decision dated 22nd August, 1974 the present appeal has been filed in this Court. 5. The lower appellate court found that the disputed shop (Gumti) is a new construction built in or about the year IS65 by the plaintiff appellant on a protion of the street which is also a public street and that the Waqf had no right to let out the site on the Gumti to the plaintiff appellant for any purpose whatsoever. It was further found that the case set up by the plaintiff appellant, that the Gumti was built on the own land, was wholly incorrect but, actually, this is a new construction, not made on the own site. It is, in fact, a structure made on the public street, without the permission of the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. With these findings, the appeal was allowed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised three contentions before me. His first contention is that the lower appellate court has erred in holding that the land on which the shop in dispute is situate is a public street. With these findings, the appeal was allowed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised three contentions before me. His first contention is that the lower appellate court has erred in holding that the land on which the shop in dispute is situate is a public street. The second contention is that there is no evidence on the record to establish that the Nagar Mahapalika is in fact, levelling, paying, channelling and repairing the street out of the funds of the Nagar Mahapalika, and, as such the land in dispute cannot be declared as a public street. The third contention of the learned counsel is that the judgment given in suit No. 412 of 1937 (Ext-B-1) operates as res judicata in the present proceedings and the view, to the contrary, taken by the lower appellate court is erroneous in law. 7. In so far as the third contention is concerned, the lower appellate court has considered the judgment in suit No. 412 of 1937 along with the plaint, which is Ext. 37 on the record. It has been found by the lower appellate court the land involved in it was different from the land involved in the present suit. Since the land involved in the present suit is different from the land involved in suit No. 412 of 1937 the decision given in that suit cannot possibly operate as res-judicata in the present proceedings. The judgment in suit No. 412 of 1937 was placed in extensor by the learned counsel before me and I am satisfied that it is clear from the said judgment that the land, which was involved in the said suit, is different from the land involved in the present proceedings. The finding, therefore, recorded by the lower appellate court cannot be said to be illegal. In fact, in suit No. 412 of 1937, the land was different from the so-called site. In the present case, the land, which has been let out by the Waqf is on the street itself and as such, the said judgment was rightly held by the lower appellate court as not to operate as res judicata in the present suit. The third submission therefore cannot be substantiated by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. In the present case, the land, which has been let out by the Waqf is on the street itself and as such, the said judgment was rightly held by the lower appellate court as not to operate as res judicata in the present suit. The third submission therefore cannot be substantiated by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. In regard to the first submission made by the learned counsel, the words, "public street"has been defined in Section 2 (62) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. It reads as under : "2. (62). "Public street"means any street - (a) here to before levelled, paved, metalled, channelled, severed or repaired of Mahapalika or other public funds ; or (b) Which under the provisions of Section 290 is declared to be, or under any other provision of this Act, becomes, a public street;" 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that since the street has not teen declared to be a public street under Section 290 of the Adhiniyam, it cannot be held to be a public street. This submission, in my opinion, is not correct. Any street can become a public street provided it comes in clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 2 (62) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. They are separate clauses. If once it is established by the Nagar Mahapalika that any street has been levelled, paved, channelled, sewared or repaired out of the Nagar Mahapalika or other public funds, it would become a public street. Clause (b) is an in dependent clause and under that clause, if a declaration is made under Section 290 of the Adhiniyam, it would also become a public street, but it is not necessary that, in every case, a street can become a public street if a declaration is made under Section 290 of the Adhiniyam. 10. In the instant case, the lower appellate court, after examining the oral and documentary evidence on the record, has found as a fact that the street in question is being revelled, paved sewared and repaired by the Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad. This finding can not be said to be based on no evidences. In view of this finding, it would clearly be a public street within the meaning of Section 2 (62) (a) of the Adhiniyam. This finding can not be said to be based on no evidences. In view of this finding, it would clearly be a public street within the meaning of Section 2 (62) (a) of the Adhiniyam. As I have already observed above, the finding recorded by the lower appellate court is to the effect that the shop in question is on a portion of the public street. In view of this finding, the Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad, had the jurisdiction under Section 296 of the Adhiniyam to remove, without notice, any structure over any street. In the circumstances, the view taken by the lower appellate court is correct and I do not find any legal infirmity in the same. 11. In the result, there is no force in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.