As per case facts, Appellants (tenants) leased a property from Respondents (landlords). A dispute arose concerning alleged unpaid rent, electricity and water dues, and expenses incurred for repairs and renovation ... after the Appellants vacated the premises. The Commercial Court partly decreed the suit for recovery, awarding a certain sum along with interest. The Appellants then filed an Appeal before the High Court, challenging the correctness of the Impugned Judgment. The question arose whether the Commercial Court committed any error of law, perversity, or infirmity in appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record while partly decreeing the Respondents' recovery suit, particularly regarding enhanced rent, loss of user compensation, utility charges, and repair costs, given the Appellants' ex-parte status and unrebutted evidence. Finally, the High Court found no perversity, illegality, or patent error in the conclusions reached by the Commercial Court, including its assessment of enhanced rent (though noting a different legal view on unregistered lease deeds, but upholding the outcome due to lack of challenge by Respondents), compensation for loss of user, utility charges, and repair cost assessment. The Impugned Judgment was affirmed in its entirety.