Tablespace Technologies Ltd IPO

01At a glance

What the company does: leases office buildings from landlords, designs and fits them out, and sub-leases enterprise-grade offices to large companies on long contracts; it also runs ready-to-move-in "Suites", design-and-build work and on-site food and hospitality (AP p.3).

Who pays it: mainly Fortune 500 companies, global capability centres and other multinationals in technology, banking, engineering and consulting; the ten largest clients were 35.62% of FY26 revenue (AP p.3, AP p.4).

Why it is raising money: ₹5,500 million to repay borrowings, and the rest for unidentified acquisitions and general purposes (AP p.6).

How fast it has grown: revenue from ₹9,062 million in FY24 to ₹22,623 million in FY26; leasable area from 6.32 to 11.46 million square feet (AP p.8, AP p.9).

The one thing to understand: the operating business and the reported accounts point in different directions. The company's normalised EBITDA rose from ₹1,087 million to ₹4,538 million, but it reported losses of ₹15,541 million in FY25 and ₹4,034 million in FY26, and negative net worth, because convertible preference shares held by investors are carried as a liability at a fair value that rose with the company's value (AP p.8, AP p.9, DRHP p.40). Those shares convert into equity before listing.

02The business, in plain words

A managed-office company signs long leases with building owners, spends on fit-out, and then sub-leases the finished space to a tenant for several years at a higher rent that includes the fit-out and services. It earns the spread between what it pays the landlord and what the tenant pays, provided the space stays let.

A multinational needs a large office in Bengaluru → Tablespace leases a building, designs and fits it out to the client's specification → the client signs a multi-year sub-lease → Tablespace collects monthly rent and service charges and pays the landlord.

At March 2026 the company had 176 facilities in nine cities (AP p.4). Most revenue comes from Bengaluru, Pune and Gurugram (AP p.10).

Earnings equation: Profit ≈ leased area × (client rent − landlord rent − operating cost). The company's facility operating profit margin was 33.24% of normalised revenue in FY26 (AP p.9).

03Where the money comes from

Source: AP p.3. Segment figures are before an accounting adjustment for finance leases.

The ten largest clients were 36.60%, 32.08% and 35.62% of revenue over the three years, most of them in technology (AP p.4, AP p.10). Many new clients come through international property consultants (AP p.10).

04The growth record

Source: AP p.8, AP p.9.

Source: AP p.9.

05What the growth is made of

Area. Leased area nearly doubled in two years, and the Suites product grew from almost nothing to ₹3,619 million (AP p.3, AP p.9). Normalised EBITDA margin rose from 10% to 18% as new centres filled (AP p.9). Occupancy dipped to 73.51% in FY25 as large new areas opened, then recovered (AP p.9).

06Earnings quality

Three things to separate. First, the reported losses: the company says the FY25 and FY26 losses mainly reflect increases in the fair value of CCPS-A, preference shares treated as a financial liability, driven by rising valuation multiples of listed peers; on conversion to equity the liability disappears and net worth improves (DRHP p.40). Second, the "normalised" figures are the company's own measures, which restate lease accounting under Ind AS 116 on a straight-line rent basis (AP p.9). Third, cash: operating cash flow was ₹14,636.25 million in FY26, but lease payments to landlords sit in financing cash flow under Ind AS 116 (AP p.8).

07The balance sheet

Source: AP p.8, AP p.9.

Net debt was 1.00 times normalised EBITDA in FY26 (AP p.9). The larger obligations are the long leases with landlords, which the document accounts for under Ind AS 116.

08What the money is for

Source: AP p.1, AP p.6.

Acquisitions and general purposes together may not exceed 35% of gross proceeds, and each 25% (AP p.6). The offer is made under Regulation 6(2) (AP p.1).

09Who is selling

Source: AP p.1. The second row is our arithmetic from the total of 65,475,432.

AGS TS II Holdings holds 41.76% on a fully diluted basis before the offer (AP p.7).

The other sellers are Karan Chopra (promoter, up to 1,311,430 shares), Kunal Mehra (promoter, up to 10,074,740 shares), Srinivas Prasad (up to 1,967,140 shares), Narendra Kumar Kamaraju (up to 723,910 shares), RSP Real Estate LLP (up to 840,162 shares) and Ramachandra Venkatasubba Rao (up to 723,910 shares) (AP p.1).

10Promoters

The promoters are Karan Chopra, chairman, whole-time director and co-chief executive; Kunal Mehra; Sarita Banerji; KAM Advisors; and AGS TS II Holdings (AP p.5). The co-founder Amit Mono Banerji died in January 2025 (DRHP p.39). The document names the corporate promoters as KAM Advisors Private Limited and AGS TS II Holdings Pte. Ltd. (AP p.5). Remuneration to the promoters Karan Chopra and Kunal Mehra together was ₹145.46 million in FY24 and ₹135.50 million in FY26, our arithmetic (DRHP p.78).

Amit Mono Banerji's 22,118,300 CCPS-A, 22.14% of the company on a fully diluted basis, are the subject of legal proceedings among the co-founder's heirs, the co-founder's mother Sarita Banerji, a promoter, among them; Sarita Banerji claims an equal share with the co-founder's daughter under a 2024 will (DRHP p.39). The document says an adverse decision could change the shareholding pattern (DRHP p.39).

11Who already owns it

Source: AP p.7.

12What changed just before the IPO

• Losses from revaluation: CCPS fair-value losses in FY25 and FY26 turned net worth negative (AP p.8, DRHP p.40).
• A founder's death: Amit Mono Banerji's stake is in dispute among the co-founder's heirs (DRHP p.39).
• Suites: grew to ₹3,619 million of revenue in FY26 (AP p.3).

In June 2025 each ₹10 equity share was split into ten shares of ₹1 (DRHP p.91). Also in June 2025 the company issued bonus CCPS C in the ratio 3:1, three CCPS C for every equity share held, to Kunal Mehra and AGS TS II Holdings Pte. Ltd. (DRHP p.94).

The last allotment before the offer was of CCPS D to Aditya Chopra on 27 July 2026 at ₹84.90 each, which the document puts at ₹21.23 a share on conversion into four equity shares each (DRHP p.94). The only entry under changes in auditors in the last three years is the re-appointment of the same firm, Walker Chandiok & Co LLP, in December 2023 (DRHP p.82).

The company became a public limited company with a fresh certificate of incorporation dated 30 June 2025 (DRHP p.3).

13Capacity and expansion

Leasable area was 11.46 million square feet at March 2026, of which 9.33 million was leased (AP p.9). Growth comes from signing new leases and fitting them out; the proceeds also allow acquisitions (AP p.6).

14Market size and industry structure

The CBRE report cited in the offer document puts the addressable market for flexible workspace at 330 to 350 million square feet by 2028, and says flexible operators took 18 to 23% of leasing in India's top nine cities in 2025, up from 12 to 17% in 2022 (AP p.4). Those estimates are CBRE's, and newboard has not tested them.

15Competitive position

What the document claims, and what it rests on:

• Enterprise-grade clients on long contracts (AP p.3, AP p.4).
• A spread client base: the top ten at about 36% of revenue (AP p.4).
• Asset-liability matching of long client contracts against landlord leases (AP p.4).

Against that: most revenue from three cities, reliance on the technology sector, and the risk of clients leaving early (AP p.10).

16Peers the company named

The document gives an industry P/E range of 27.93 to 507.00 for its peer set, excluding a peer with negative earnings (DRHP p.131, DRHP p.132). Tablespace reported a loss, with basic loss per share of ₹108.92 in FY26, so there is no P/E even after a price band is set (AP p.8).

17Risks, in plain words

• Three cities. Bengaluru, Pune and Gurugram provide most revenue (AP p.10).
• Early exits. Clients may terminate sub-leases before term, leaving the company with landlord rent (AP p.10).
• Technology tenants. Most of the top ten clients are in technology (AP p.10).
• Disputed stake. 22.14% of the company is subject to an estate dispute (DRHP p.39).
• Accounting noise. Reported profit and net worth are dominated by preference-share revaluation until conversion (DRHP p.40).
• Brokers. New clients often come through international property consultants (AP p.10).

18Litigation and regulatory matters

The legal proceedings over the late co-founder's shares involve the promoter Sarita Banerji (DRHP p.39). The full litigation table was not read in detail for this study.

19Related-party transactions

Not read in detail for this study.

20What the offer document does not say

In the sections read for this study, the document does not give:

• Lease commitments to landlords in total, in the pages read.
• The CCPS fair-value charge for each year as a separate figure, in the pages read.
• Client contract lengths and lock-in periods.
• Which acquisitions the proceeds may fund.
• The price band, lot size or issue dates, which is normal at DRHP stage.

21Five questions for management

1. What was profit before the CCPS fair-value change in FY25 and FY26?
2. What is the average remaining lock-in on client sub-leases, against remaining landlord lease terms?
3. How will the dispute over the late co-founder's 22.14% stake affect the offer and the lock-in of promoter shares?
4. What share of new area in FY27 is already pre-committed by clients?
5. What kind of acquisitions does the company have in mind?

2Sources and cited facts

This study was read from 2 documents the company filed. The 73 figures it cites are listed under the document each came from, with the page and the sentence as printed.