What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4846382?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4846382?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4846382?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4846382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10450526-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4846382?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4846382?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4846382?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4846382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10450526-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

74 Rosewarne Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4846382 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Baker and Mr Wilson represented the landlord.
Mr Mondal and Ms Das applied for payment of the bond. They had a one-year fixed term tenancy of the premises with another couple, Debayan Guha and Sumita Sarkar. The tenancy commenced on 23 March 2023 and a bond of $2,720.00 was paid.
The relationship between the two couples broke down and, on 14 September 2023, Mr Mondal and Ms Das asked the landlord whether they could be removed from the contract. Ms Baker advised them that they could assign their tenancy to another, or they could ask the other couple if they would agree to a change in the tenancy agreement by removing Mr Mondal and Ms Das.
Then, on 12 January 2024, Ms Baker wrote to all tenants asking them whether they wanting to renew the tenancy when it expired on 24 March. Mr Mondal and Ms Das told the landlord that they did not wish to renew the tenancy. Ms Baker explained that if there was no agreement to renew or extend the tenancy, it will roll over to a periodic tenancy on expiry of the fixed term. She also explained that it would not continue as a periodic tenancy if the tenants give 28 days’ notice, before the expiry of the fixed term, that terminates the tenancy on or before the expiry or that would do if the tenancy were already periodic (section 60A(2)(d) of the Act).
However, the landlord and the other couple then agreed that the tenancy would continue after 24 March as a periodic tenancy.
On 15 February 2024 Ms Baker sent a ‘variation agreement’ releasing Mr Mondal and Ms Das from the tenancy from 24 March 2024 to all tenants for their signature. Mr Mondal said that they were reluctant to sign the variation agreement because they would then have to try to get their bond from the other couple and he did not believe they would pay it to them. They therefore wanted the tenancy to end so that the bond would then be returned by the landlord. Relying on section 60A(2)(d) of the Act, they waited until 26 February (28 days before the expiry of the fixed term) and then gave notice to end the tenancy. They referred to the principle (found in Hammersmith v Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478) that provides that one tenant can terminate a periodic tenancy by giving notice under section 51 of the Act notice even though the other tenants do not want it to end.
After they gave notice, Mr Mondal claims that Ms Baker forced him and Ms Das to sign the variation agreement telling them that if they did not do so they would remain liable under the tenancy after 24 March 2024. Mr and Ms Das moved out of the premises on 23 March 2024, and they claim that the landlord ought to have accepted the termination of the tenancy and entered into a new tenancy with the other couple. They therefore claim that the landlord should pay the bond to them.
I find that the tenancy had already been renewed or extended by the other couple before Mr Mondal and Ms Das purported to give notice to end it. The agreement made by the other couple to extend or renew the tenancy binds all of tenants, including Mr Mondal and Ms Das. Accordingly, it remained as a fixed term tenancy until 24 March and could not be ended by notice until after it became a periodic tenancy on 25 March 2024.
Ms Baker was correct in her advice to Mr Mondal and Mrs Das that to ensure that they were not liable for obligations under the tenancy agreement past 24 March they should sign the variation agreement whereby all parties agree to release them from the tenancy. Mr Mondal and Ms Das did sign the agreement (as did the other couple) and I do not accept that Ms Baker in any way pressured them to do so. The signing of the variation agreement does not of course end the tenancy, it continues with the two remaining tenants. The bond belongs to the tenancy, not to individual tenants (even if one tenant pays most or all of the bond for the tenancy) and it remains with the tenancy until the tenancy ends. It is up to the tenants themselves to determine whether the remaining tenants should pay the departing tenants some or all of the bond. Any dispute between tenants on the matter is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and would need to be determined elsewhere (such as the Disputes Tribunal).
Mr Mondal and Ms Das’ claim for payment of the bond is therefore dismissed. Suppression
Mr Mondal and Ms Das applied for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, Mr Mondal and Ms Das have been wholly unsuccessful in their claim. Their application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Baker and Mr Wilson represented the landlord.
Mr Mondal and Ms Das applied for payment of the bond. They had a one-year fixed term tenancy of the premises with another couple, Debayan Guha and Sumita Sarkar. The tenancy commenced on 23 March 2023 and a bond of $2,720.00 was paid.
The relationship between the two couples broke down and, on 14 September 2023, Mr Mondal and Ms Das asked the landlord whether they could be removed from the contract. Ms Baker advised them that they could assign their tenancy to another, or they could ask the other couple if they would agree to a change in the tenancy agreement by removing Mr Mondal and Ms Das.
Then, on 12 January 2024, Ms Baker wrote to all tenants asking them whether they wanting to renew the tenancy when it expired on 24 March. Mr Mondal and Ms Das told the landlord that they did not wish to renew the tenancy. Ms Baker explained that if there was no agreement to renew or extend the tenancy, it will roll over to a periodic tenancy on expiry of the fixed term. She also explained that it would not continue as a periodic tenancy if the tenants give 28 days’ notice, before the expiry of the fixed term, that terminates the tenancy on or before the expiry or that would do if the tenancy were already periodic (section 60A(2)(d) of the Act).
However, the landlord and the other couple then agreed that the tenancy would continue after 24 March as a periodic tenancy.
On 15 February 2024 Ms Baker sent a ‘variation agreement’ releasing Mr Mondal and Ms Das from the tenancy from 24 March 2024 to all tenants for their signature. Mr Mondal said that they were reluctant to sign the variation agreement because they would then have to try to get their bond from the other couple and he did not believe they would pay it to them. They therefore wanted the tenancy to end so that the bond would then be returned by the landlord. Relying on section 60A(2)(d) of the Act, they waited until 26 February (28 days before the expiry of the fixed term) and then gave notice to end the tenancy. They referred to the principle (found in Hammersmith v Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478) that provides that one tenant can terminate a periodic tenancy by giving notice under section 51 of the Act notice even though the other tenants do not want it to end.
After they gave notice, Mr Mondal claims that Ms Baker forced him and Ms Das to sign the variation agreement telling them that if they did not do so they would remain liable under the tenancy after 24 March 2024. Mr and Ms Das moved out of the premises on 23 March 2024, and they claim that the landlord ought to have accepted the termination of the tenancy and entered into a new tenancy with the other couple. They therefore claim that the landlord should pay the bond to them.
I find that the tenancy had already been renewed or extended by the other couple before Mr Mondal and Ms Das purported to give notice to end it. The agreement made by the other couple to extend or renew the tenancy binds all of tenants, including Mr Mondal and Ms Das. Accordingly, it remained as a fixed term tenancy until 24 March and could not be ended by notice until after it became a periodic tenancy on 25 March 2024.
Ms Baker was correct in her advice to Mr Mondal and Mrs Das that to ensure that they were not liable for obligations under the tenancy agreement past 24 March they should sign the variation agreement whereby all parties agree to release them from the tenancy. Mr Mondal and Ms Das did sign the agreement (as did the other couple) and I do not accept that Ms Baker in any way pressured them to do so. The signing of the variation agreement does not of course end the tenancy, it continues with the two remaining tenants. The bond belongs to the tenancy, not to individual tenants (even if one tenant pays most or all of the bond for the tenancy) and it remains with the tenancy until the tenancy ends. It is up to the tenants themselves to determine whether the remaining tenants should pay the departing tenants some or all of the bond. Any dispute between tenants on the matter is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and would need to be determined elsewhere (such as the Disputes Tribunal).
Mr Mondal and Ms Das’ claim for payment of the bond is therefore dismissed. Suppression
Mr Mondal and Ms Das applied for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, Mr Mondal and Ms Das have been wholly unsuccessful in their claim. Their application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4846382 — Tenancy dispute at 74 Rosewarne Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4846382 — Tenancy dispute at 74 Rosewarne Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions