- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27613-DB COMAP No. 60 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. AEVEXIA WELLNESS PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT NO.180 STONE HOUSE, 4 'D' MAIN ROAD MAHALAXMI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 086 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DR. JAYACHANDRA M. PRESENTLY RECOGNIZED REGISTERED OFFICE BEFORE THE COMPANIES AT NO.11, HMG SOLITAIRE C.J. D'SOUZA ROAD, RICHMOND TOWER BENGALURU - 560 025 …APPELLANT (BY SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. HMG ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.24, 'ZEENATH HOUSE' Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27613-DB COMAP No. 60 of 2026 COWL BAZAAR, BELLARY - 583 102 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SUHAIL AHMED …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MOHAMMAD NIYAZ S., ADVOCATE) THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.03.2023, PASSED IN COM.O.S.NO.26273/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT) (CCH-84) AT BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. Sri. Mohammed Niyaz.S., learned counsel accepts notice for the respondent. He has handed over a paper book which is taken on record. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant [the defendant] has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2023 passed by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27613-DB COMAP No. 60 of 2026 the learned Commercial Court in Com.O.S.No.26273/2020 [impugned judgment and decree]. 4. The respondent [the plaintiff] had filed the aforementioned suit, inter alia, seeking a degree of ejectment of the appellant from a commercial property comprising of basement, ground floor, mezzanine, first, second and terrace floors of a commercial building known as 'HMG Solitaire' constructed on the land bearing Municipal No.11, C.J. D'Souza Road, Off Hayes Road, Richmond Town, Bengaluru - 560 025 [demised premises] as well as arrears of rent quantified at `52,88,400/- (Rupees Fifty-two lakhs Eighty- eight thousand and Four hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 5. The learned Commercial Court decreed the suit in terms of the impugned judgment and directed the defendant to hand over possession of the demised premises to the plaintiff within a period of one month. The Court also passed a decree for recovery of a sum of `52,88,400/- (Rupees Fifty-two lakhs Eighty-eight thousand and Four hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. Additionally, the Court also passed a decree for damages at the rate of `5,33,925/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27613-DB COMAP No. 60 of 2026 (Rupees Five lakhs Thirty-three thousand Nine hundred and Twenty-five only) per month for use and occupation of the property from the date of the suit till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the demised premises. 6. Although the defendant’s counsel had entered appearance, the defendant had not filed any written statement. 7. The plaintiff had led evidence and on the basis of the averments made in the plaint, and the evidence led by the plaintiff, the learned Commercial Court accepted the plaintiff's claim. 8. The defendant had filed an application [Com. Mis. No.71/2023] under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC], for setting aside the impugned judgment. However, the learned Commercial Court had dismissed the said application by an order dated 07.03.2025. 9. Assailing the said order, the defendant had filed a commercial appeal [COMAP NO.419/2025] which was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 18.09.2025. 10. As noted above, the defendant did not file its written statement, and thus the averments made in the plaint remained - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27613-DB COMAP No. 60 of 2026 untraversed. However, the defendant has also not made any averments in the pleadings before this court to dispute the material facts either in the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC or in the memorandum of the present appeal. 11. There is no dispute that the demised premises were leased to the appellant/defendant in terms of a lease agreement dated 13.12.2018 entered into between the parties. In terms of the said lease, the term of the lease was for a period of 15 years, commencing 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2033. The parties had agreed that the first 8 months of the lease term, i.e., from 01.01.2019 to 31.08.2019 would be a rent-free period. The defendant's obligation to pay rent would commence from 01.09.2019. The parties had agreed that the monthly rent for the four months period from 01.09.2019 to 31.12.2019 would be `5,08,500/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eight thousand and Five hundred only). The rent for the calendar year 2020 was agreed to be `5,33,925/- (Rupees Five lakhs Thirty-three thousand Nine hundred and Twenty-five only) per month. Thereafter, the monthly rent would increase by 5% after the expiry of every year over the rent paid for the immediately - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27613-DB COMAP No. 60 of 2026 preceding period. The parties had also agreed to a 5-year lock-in period. 12. It is the plaintiff's case that, at the defendant's instance, the rent-free period was extended from 8 to 10 months. Thus, the defendant was liable to pay rent from 01.11.2019. However, the defendant failed to pay any rent to the plaintiff. In view of the defendant's default, the plaintiff issued a legal notice calling upon the defendant to rectify the breach and to pay the arrears of rent amounting to `15,50,925/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs Fifty thousand Nine hundred and Twenty-five only) within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the lease will stand terminated. 13. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to clause 20.3 of the lease agreement, which is set out below: "20.3. If the Lessee defaults-in the payment of 2 (Two) cumulative months rents and the amount remains unpaid even after a 15 day notice is issued by the Lessor, the lease shall stand terminated and the Lessee shall handover vacant possession of the Schedule Property to the Lessor." 14. The defendant did not pay the arrears of rent as demanded by the plaintiff. Thus, under clause 20.3 of the lease agreement, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27613-DB COMAP No. 60 of 2026 the lease was terminated. However, notwithstanding that the lease was terminated, the defendant continued to occupy the demised premises without paying any rent or occupation charges. In view of the same, the plaintiff instituted the aforementioned suit [COM.O.S.26273/2020] on 04.11.2020. 15. Since the defendant did not comply with the impugned judgment, the plaintiff instituted a petition for execution of the impugned judgment and decree [Com.Ex.No.291/2023]. The plaintiff recovered possession of the demised premises on 01.09.2023 pursuant to the delivery warrant dated 31.08.2023 issued by the learned Commercial Court in the said execution proceedings. 16. The defendant seeks to assail the impugned judgment on the ground that the defendant was not provided sufficient opportunity to contest the suit. However, we find that the said plea is not substantiated. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant fairly stated that the said argument was also raised before this Court in COMAP No.419/2025, which was preferred against the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27613-DB COMAP No. 60 of 2026 learned Commercial Court, dismissing the defendant's application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in Com.Mis.No.71/2023. 17. As noted at the outset, there is no averment in the memorandum of appeal which would provide any ground on which the suit could be resisted on the merits. There is no dispute that the defendant failed to pay rent for the demised premises and continued to occupy them without paying any rent until it was evicted on 01.09.2023. 18. In view of the above, we concur with the impugned judgment. The defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent and occupation charges/damages as decreed. 19. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12