IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 226 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. SURE WAVES MEDIA TECH PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT WE WORK SALARPURIA MAGNIFICIA

13^TH FLOOR, NO.78, NEXT TO KR PURAM TIN FACTORY, OLD MADRAS ROAD MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. ANANT KANSAL …APPELLANT (BY SRI GURU PRASANNA S., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND:

SRIDEVI S Location:

High Court MR. FATHIRAJ of Karnataka SON OF LATE BALASWAMY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS (DECEASED)

SINCE REPRESENTED BY LR

1. MRS. KALA WIFE OF LATE MR. FATHIRAJ AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 36, ST BED CHANDRA REDDY LAYOUT VIVEKNAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 047 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRASAD N., ADVOCATE)

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

13(1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.02.2025 IN COM. O.S. NO.668/2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL COURT NO.88), AND DECREE THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND DISMISS THE COUNTER-CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT IN ITS ENTIRETY &

ETC.

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment and decree dated 17.02.2025 [impugned order] passed in Com.OS.No.668/2021 by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [Commercial Court] captioned 'Sure Waves Media Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Fathiraj and another.

2. The appellant [the lessee] filed the aforementioned suit, inter alia, praying for a decree declaring that the leave and licence agreement dated 21.10.2019 [the lease agreement] was cancelled and terminated with effect from 01.07.2020 or, alternatively, on 26.02.2021. The appellant also sought a decree for the recovery of `12,86,941/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty One only) as a refund of rent and security deposit. Additionally, the appellant claimed damages amounting to `45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs only) as compensation for loss of data, financial losses and computer services rendered unusable from 25.06.2020 to 24.09.2021. The appellant also requested interest on these amounts.

3. The original Defendant No.1, Sri B. Fathiraj, passed away during the pendency of the suit and was represented by his legal representative, Ms Kala (wife of the deceased), who was brought on record as Defendant No.1(a). Ms Kala is also arrayed as Defendant No.2 in her individual capacity.

4. The respondents [the lessors] raised a counter claim, inter alia, praying for a decree of declaration that the lease agreement stood terminated as on 15.11.2021; for recovery of an amount of `81,27,111/- (Rupees Eighty One Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Eleven only) towards arrears of rent after deducting security deposit of `30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only); for interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of default till realisation; for recovery of a sum of `6,15,001/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifteen Thousand and One only) as electricity and maintenance charges; for a sum of `4,03,700/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Three Thousand and Seven Hundred only) on account of painting and maintenance of office furniture; and legal costs.

5. The learned Commercial Court rejected the suit. However, it partly allowed the counter claim of the defendants. The Court held that the leave and licence agreement dated 21.10.2019 was terminated with effect from 15.11.2021 and awarded a sum of `81,27,111/- (Rupees Eighty One Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hun