Hold-over occupant liable for penal damages at five times license fee upon termination of infrastructure agreement.

The Petitioner, Prasar Bharati, entered into a Licensed Infrastructure agreement with the Respondent on 23.03.2006 to provide space and tower aperture for FM radio transmission in Hissar

This agreement was contingent upon a Grant of Permission Agreement (GOPA) between the Government of India and the Respondent

The Government terminated the GOPA on 17.07.2009, which automatically terminated the infrastructure agreement

Despite termination, the Respondent failed to remove its equipment or pay outstanding license fees, leading the Petitioner to seek a declaration of unauthorized possession, damages (quantified at five times the license fee per Clause 7.7), and arrears

The Respondent failed to appear despite multiple notices, including service via police mode, and the matter proceeded ex-parte

The Tribunal applied Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, regarding its jurisdiction over broadcasting disputes

It relied on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically Section 102 regarding the initial onus of proof

It cited Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) on the principle that the person asserting a fact bears the burden of proof

State of J & K v. Hindustan Forest Co. (2006), clarifying that a plaintiff must stand on the strength of their own evidence rather than the weakness of the defense

The Tribunal further applied the standard of "preponderance of probabilities" for civil proceedings as established in M Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001)

The Petitioner produced uncontroverted documentary evidence, including the GOPA (Ex. PW-1/2), the Infrastructure Agreement (Ex. PW-1/3), and the Termination Letter (Ex. PW-1/4), all authenticated by witness testimony

The Tribunal reasoned that since the GOPA was terminated on 17.07.2009, the infrastructure agreement stood automatically terminated under the contract's own terms

Clause 7.7 of the agreement explicitly stipulated damages at five times the annual rent if equipment was not removed upon termination

Because the Respondent offered no rebuttal or reply despite sufficient service, the Tribunal found the Petitioner’s evidence met the threshold of preponderance of probabilities

The Tribunal also noted its own precedents in similar matters against other broadcasters where such claims were upheld

It directed the Respondent to: (i) vacate the premises and remove equipment within two months; (ii) pay damages of ₹80,38,510/- for the period 17.07.2009 to 31.12.2015; and (iii) pay license fee arrears of ₹12,34,255/-

The Tribunal also awarded pendente lite and future simple interest at 9% per annum from 31.12.2015 until the date of payment