The case revolves around a dispute between the Plaintiffs and Defendant regarding a leave and license agreement for a 250-square-foot plot in Mumbai. The Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for various damages and costs, while the Defendant has filed a counterclaim for losses due to the demolition of a Ground Based Tower (GBT) they constructed on the Suit plot. The court must decide on jurisdiction and whether the claims should be handled by the Civil Court or the Court of Small Causes.

Claims by Plaintiffs

1. License Fee for One Month
2. Compensation for a Six-Month Notice Period
3. Costs for Removal of RCC Column and Debris
4. Costs for Constructing a Compound Wall
5. Additional License Fee for the Use of the Remaining Suit Plot

Counterclaim by Defendant

• Compensation for Losses Due to Demolition of GBT: The Defendant claims Rs. 7,86,550/- in damages for the demolition of the GBT, arguing the Plaintiffs failed to disclose that the Suit plot was in a No Development Zone (NDZ).

Background

• Ownership Transfer: The property was originally owned by Plaintiff No. 2 and transferred to Plaintiff No. 1 via a Gift Deed in 1995.
• Agreement and Construction: The Defendant entered into a leave and license agreement in 2008 for 10 years, allowing them to erect a GBT. An addendum permitted a second operator to share the site.

Key Legal Issues

1. Jurisdiction: Whether the case should be handled by the Civil Court or the Court of Small Causes, given the nature of the claims.
2. Damages and Compensation: The Plaintiffs seek compensation for breach of contract and related costs, while the Defendant's counterclaim focuses on losses from the demolished GBT.

Court's Analysis

• Nature of the Agreement: The court examined the leave and license agreement, highlighting that it explicitly defines the relationship as licensor and licensee and not as a lease.
• Jurisdictional Determination: The court determined that claims based on license fees and additional license fees should be handled by the Court of Small Causes, as they are directly tied to the license agreement.

Conclusion

• Principal Claims: Claims for license fees and additional license fees fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes.
• Claims for Damages: Claims for damages related to the removal of debris and construction of a compound wall are also directed to the Court of Small Causes for a consistent adjudication.

The court concluded that the case should be transferred to the Court of Small Causes, as it has the exclusive jurisdiction over such matters under the relevant laws.