1. Jurisdiction: The Tribunal under the TRAI Act, 1997 possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between service providers and broadcasters, including cases where a statutory body like Prasar Bharti is the landlord, as the dispute arises from tender conditions imposed by the Central Government.
2. Interpretation of Clause 3.3: The clause stating that the first year commences from the date the Tower aperture/Open space is made available must be given its literal effect. The expression 'available' refers to the operational readiness of the aperture for the broadcaster's use, not merely the physical existence of space.
3. Legal Fiction and Commercial Understanding: The inclusion of the phrase regarding the tower aperture was a deliberate 'legal fiction' inserted to avoid the hardship of charging rent immediately upon the availability of land while the infrastructure was under construction. It ensures the licensee bears no unnecessary rental burden during the interim arrangement phase. A mistake in drafting (arguing to delete 'tower aperture') is not sustainable unless apparent on the face of the record or known to the parties, and the Tribunal is not empowered to rectify contracts unilaterally based on unilateral contentions after a long period.
4. Intimation and Agency: The Petitioner was deemed to have been intimated regarding the handing over of the CTI covered space because BECIL acted as the agent of the Petitioner. Handing over possession to the agent constitutes sufficient compliance with the agreement's conditions.
5. Outcome: The petition against Respondent No.1 (Prasar Bharti) is allowed, validating the rent liability from the date of tower aperture availability but accepting the established fact regarding the agency relationship. No order is made against Respondent No.2 regarding tower construction liabilities.
