Claims arising from a Leave and License Agreement for license fees fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, regardless of the property type involved.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Suit is filed by Plaintiffs for 5 claims titled as (1) Licence fee for one month (2) compensation in lieu of six months notice period (3) costs for removal of RCC column and debris (4) costs for compound wall and (5) additional license fee for use of balance Suit plot in the particulars of claim / Exhibit “P” to the Suit plaint. Defendant has filed Counter Claim of Rs.7,86,550/- for losses incurred by Defendant for construction of the Ground Based Tower (for short “GBT”) which was demolished by the Corporation.

2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the present case are as under:-

2.1. Plaintiff No.1 executed a leave and license agreement dated 18.09.2008 (for short “the Licence Agreement”) with Defendant, allowing use of 250 square feet area out of Plaintiffs’ larger property admeasuirng 4970 square feet bearing Survey No.32, CTS No.158 situated opposite Sea Pearl, Madh, Malad, Mumbai – 400 065. For sake of convenience, licensed premises under the license agreement admeasuring 250 square feet will be referred to as “the Suit plot”. Plaintiff No.2, father of Plaintiff No.1 is the original owner of the Suit plot and the larger property. By registered Gift Deed dated 20.12.1995, Plaintiff No.2 transferred all rights in the Suit plot and larger property to Plaintiff No.1.

2.2. In and around July 2008, Defendant was looking for a plot of land to erect a Ground Based Tower (for short “GBT”) for transmission in Madh area at Malad, Mumbai. One Mr. Jainik Adani on behalf of Defendant approached Plaintiff No.2 father of Plaintiff No.1 and offered to take the area of 250 square feet out of the larger property for erecting the GBT. In August 2008, Mr. Adani revisited the Suit plot alongwith one Mr. Apurva, Defendant’s Surveyor to measure the intensity of communication signals from the Suit plot alongwith equipment and identified the Suit plot i.e. the area ad-measuring 250 square feet towards the northern part of the larger property of Plaintiffs as suitable for erecting the GBT.

2.3. On 02.08.2008, Mr. Adani visited office of Plaintiff No.2 and handed over a check list of documents required by Defendant’s legal Department in the presence of one Mr. Amit Mane, who has turned in as Plaintiffs’ witness No.2 in the Suit proceedings. According to Defendant, on instructions of Plaintiff No.2, Mr. Amit Mane provided inspection and copies of 9 documents out of the documents sought for by Defendant as per its check list. Out of the check list, a crucial letter dated 19.03.1994 issued by MGGM (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai) alongwith the map demarcating the larger property as also the Suit plot was not handed over to Defendant.

2.4. Based on the above interaction and exchanges, on 02.08.2008 a preliminary letter of intent was executed between parties which is appended at page No.420 of Volume 4 of the common paperbook.

2.5. It is Plaintiffs’ case that on 06.08.2008, one Mr. Ranga, CFO of Defendant and one Mr. Pandey who turned in as Defendant’s witness No.1 visited Plaintiff No.2 in his office and collected the letter dated 11.03.1994 issued by MCGM alongwith the map demarcating the entire Suit plot as per check list which was handed on 02.08.2008. This fact is however refuted and denied by Defendant – Company on several grounds, namely that such a visit on 06.08.2008 is not stated in the Suit plaint, that CFO of the Company namely Mr. Ranka would never visit any site considering his position and status, that the Defendant was in the business of erecting thousands of such towers and was operating them and more specifically on the ground that Mr. Pandey was not in the employment of the Defendant on that date.

2.6. On 18.09.2008, leave and license agreement was executed between parties permitting Defendant to use the Suit plot for a tenure of 10 years and to construct the GBT and do other ancillary works.

2.7. On 18.09.2009, Mr. Adani informed the Plaintiffs that M/s. Idea Cellular will be the second operator sharing the e