What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4600754?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4600754?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600754?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600754?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9574721-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4600754?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4600754?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600754?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600754?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9574721-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

319 Andrews Road, Glenavy, Waimate 7980 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4600754 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by two tenants, although for the reasons I will set out below, there is a question as to whether both of the applicant are tenants. The landlord had given a notice to Ms Bansal to leave the tenancy, and the application to the Tribunal is a challenge of that notice.
All parties appeared at the telephone hearing on 27 October 2023 - today. That was Mr Sukhdeep and Ms Bansal. Representing LJ Pastoral Limited was Mr Apafi.

BACKGROUND

The background in this case is not in dispute, and can be summarised as follows: a. LJ Pastoral Limited (the landlord) operates a farm. b. Mr Sukhdeep was an employee of the landlord, and as part of his employment agreement, was provided with accommodation in a farm house. c. Ms Bansal is Mr Sukhdeep’s partner, and at some stage moved to New Zealand, and moved in with Mr Sukhdeep in the farm house. d. On 7 June 2023 the employer gave a notice to Ms Bansal that she needed to leave the premises: Because of the housing situation I will need the house at 319 Andrews Road to be single shared accommodation. Since you are not an employee of LJ Pastoral Ltd I am asking you to leave the property by 19/6/2023. Sorry for the inconvenience. e. On 9 June 2023 the applicants filed this application with the Tribunal challenging that notice. f. Mr Sukhdeep’s employment with the landlord ended on 14 July 2023, and he has since moved out of the premises.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

ANALYSIS

The background facts are not disputed by the parties. The case turns on the question of whether the notice given to Ms Bansal was a lawful notice, and for the following reasons I find it was.
To begin with, it must be recognised that Ms Bansal is not a tenant of the landlord. She has not been an employee of the landlord, and there is no evidence or suggestion that she has been offered a tenancy, and to that extent she is not a tenant. Therefore the obligations that arise in the RTA between the landlord and Ms Bansal around termination of tenancies does not apply.
Putting to one side the fact that Mr Sukhdeep is a tenant (and I will discuss this shortly), the usual situation is that a person who has a right to possess premises can ask someone who is on the premises to leave, and if they fail to depart as required, then they become a trespasser.
In this case however, Mr Sukhdeep is a tenant, he has what is referred to in the RTA as a service tenancy. A service tenancy is defined in the RTA as follows: [a] service tenancy means a tenancy granted under a term of, or otherwise as an incident of, a contract of service or a contract for services between the landlord as employer and the tenant as employee or contractor, whether or not a separate tenancy agreement is concluded in writing between the parties, and whether or not any rent is payable for the tenancy;
In this case there is a written agreement between the parties setting out the terms of the service tenancy, a copy of the relevant provision has been provided to the Tribunal. Importantly the agreement includes the following clause: The employee may not rent, share, or have other people staying at the house for any period of time without the specific approval of the employer.
It is normally the case when tenancy premises are rented to a tenant (Mr Sukhdeep in this case), the tenant has quiet enjoyment of the premises, meaning the tenant can decide who comes to the premises, even who stays on the premises with the tenant. However, there is an important limitation to that in the RTA, in that the RTA does allow a landlord to limit the number of occupants in a tenancy, and if the tenant exceeds that number of occupants, then the tenant commits an unlawful act (see RTA section 40(3)). So the landlords clause in the tenancy agreement set out above is consistent with that general ability to limit the number of occupants in the dwelling.
In short, I cannot see any reason the landlord could not have asked Ms Bansal to leave the premises as the landlord has done in this case.
The tenant submitted that there are other workers who have their partners staying with them. That may be the case, but that does not prove that the landlord has acted unlawfully toward Ms Bansal. Even if the landlord had approved other partners staying in other buildings, the landlord was not obligated under tenancy law to extend that same approval to Ms Bansal.
For those reasons the application before the Tribunal must be dismissed.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression, but given they have been unsuccessful, name suppression is declined.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by two tenants, although for the reasons I will set out below, there is a question as to whether both of the applicant are tenants. The landlord had given a notice to Ms Bansal to leave the tenancy, and the application to the Tribunal is a challenge of that notice.
All parties appeared at the telephone hearing on 27 October 2023 - today. That was Mr Sukhdeep and Ms Bansal. Representing LJ Pastoral Limited was Mr Apafi.

BACKGROUND

The background in this case is not in dispute, and can be summarised as follows: a. LJ Pastoral Limited (the landlord) operates a farm. b. Mr Sukhdeep was an employee of the landlord, and as part of his employment agreement, was provided with accommodation in a farm house. c. Ms Bansal is Mr Sukhdeep’s partner, and at some stage moved to New Zealand, and moved in with Mr Sukhdeep in the farm house. d. On 7 June 2023 the employer gave a notice to Ms Bansal that she needed to leave the premises: Because of the housing situation I will need the house at 319 Andrews Road to be single shared accommodation. Since you are not an employee of LJ Pastoral Ltd I am asking you to leave the property by 19/6/2023. Sorry for the inconvenience. e. On 9 June 2023 the applicants filed this application with the Tribunal challenging that notice. f. Mr Sukhdeep’s employment with the landlord ended on 14 July 2023, and he has since moved out of the premises.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

ANALYSIS

The background facts are not disputed by the parties. The case turns on the question of whether the notice given to Ms Bansal was a lawful notice, and for the following reasons I find it was.
To begin with, it must be recognised that Ms Bansal is not a tenant of the landlord. She has not been an employee of the landlord, and there is no evidence or suggestion that she has been offered a tenancy, and to that extent she is not a tenant. Therefore the obligations that arise in the RTA between the landlord and Ms Bansal around termination of tenancies does not apply.
Putting to one side the fact that Mr Sukhdeep is a tenant (and I will discuss this shortly), the usual situation is that a person who has a right to possess premises can ask someone who is on the premises to leave, and if they fail to depart as required, then they become a trespasser.
In this case however, Mr Sukhdeep is a tenant, he has what is referred to in the RTA as a service tenancy. A service tenancy is defined in the RTA as follows: [a] service tenancy means a tenancy granted under a term of, or otherwise as an incident of, a contract of service or a contract for services between the landlord as employer and the tenant as employee or contractor, whether or not a separate tenancy agreement is concluded in writing between the parties, and whether or not any rent is payable for the tenancy;
In this case there is a written agreement between the parties setting out the terms of the service tenancy, a copy of the relevant provision has been provided to the Tribunal. Importantly the agreement includes the following clause: The employee may not rent, share, or have other people staying at the house for any period of time without the specific approval of the employer.
It is normally the case when tenancy premises are rented to a tenant (Mr Sukhdeep in this case), the tenant has quiet enjoyment of the premises, meaning the tenant can decide who comes to the premises, even who stays on the premises with the tenant. However, there is an important limitation to that in the RTA, in that the RTA does allow a landlord to limit the number of occupants in a tenancy, and if the tenant exceeds that number of occupants, then the tenant commits an unlawful act (see RTA section 40(3)). So the landlords clause in the tenancy agreement set out above is consistent with that general ability to limit the number of occupants in the dwelling.
In short, I cannot see any reason the landlord could not have asked Ms Bansal to leave the premises as the landlord has done in this case.
The tenant submitted that there are other workers who have their partners staying with them. That may be the case, but that does not prove that the landlord has acted unlawfully toward Ms Bansal. Even if the landlord had approved other partners staying in other buildings, the landlord was not obligated under tenancy law to extend that same approval to Ms Bansal.
For those reasons the application before the Tribunal must be dismissed.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression, but given they have been unsuccessful, name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600754 — Tenancy dispute at 319 Andrews Road, Glenavy, Waimate 7980

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600754 — Tenancy dispute at 319 Andrews Road, Glenavy, Waimate 7980

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions