
    GM DRUG COMPANY, a Florida corporation d/b/a Federal Discount, George F. Knox, Jr., in his official capacity as City Attorney of the City of Miami of the State of Florida; Laura McCarthy; Mark Matthes; J. Robert Stobs; Frank J. Hathaway; Nicholas H. Morley, individual citizens and residents of Dade County; Laura McCarthy, Inc., Wimbledon Racquet Club: Stob Bros. Construction Co.; Industrial Traffic Consultants, Inc., and Morley Realty, Inc., Florida corporations, Appellants, v. Alvin J. TAYLOR, in his official capacity as Secretary, State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Max B. Rothman, in his official capacity as District Administrator, State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, District Eleven, and George Goldbloom and Emanuel Edelstein d/b/a MG Investment, a partnership, Appellees.
    No. 81-1307.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 20, 1982.
    Sparber, Shevin, Rosen, Shapo & Heil-bronner and David A. Gunter and Jeffrey M. Weissman, Miami, for appellants.
    Leonard Helfand, Miami, Richard, Licht-erman & Scher and Herbert Lichterman, Miami Beach, for appellees.
    Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and JOR-GENSON, JJ.
   BASKIN, Judge.

We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of appellants’ action seeking injunctive relief to abate an alleged nuisance maintained by appellees. The injury complained of is overcrowding in a shopping plaza caused by lines of food stamp applicants. An injunction was requested pursuant to section 60.-05(1), Florida Statutes (1979) and section 823.05, Florida Statutes (1979).

We hold that the cause should not have been dismissed without affording appellants leave to amend. See Quinlan v. Mott, 375 So.2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Osborne v. Delta Maintenance and Welding, Inc., 365 So.2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Lopez v. La Fuente, 343 So.2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Fla.R.Civ.Proc. 1.190. Cf. Shamhart v. Morrison Cafeteria Co., 159 Fla. 629, 32 So.2d 727 (Fla.1947) (plaintiff successfully demonstrated elements of nuisance; dismissal reversed).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 
      
      . Section 60.05(1) states: “[A]ny citizen of the county may sue ... to enjoin the nuisance, the person or persons maintaining it, and the owner or agent of the building or ground on which the nuisance exists.
     
      
      . Section 823.05 states: “[Wjhoever shall . . . maintain, own or lease any building . .. which tends to annoy the community ... shall be deemed guilty of maintaining a nuisance ... and the building . .. and contents are declared a nuisance.”
     