What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5162171?

The tribunal order states: Rohit Malik and Kritagya Sharma must pay TBT Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5162171?

Rubbish Removal: $586.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,767.14 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $111.47 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162171?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13093468-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5162171?

The tribunal order states: Rohit Malik and Kritagya Sharma must pay TBT Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5162171?

Rubbish Removal: $586.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,767.14 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $111.47 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162171?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13093468-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

116B Kimpton Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5162171 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5162171 — net $3,302.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears and rent owed to 14/03/2025	$5,767.14	Rent arrears and rent owed to 14/03/2025
Water rates: to 29/01/2025	$111.47	Water rates: to 29/01/2025
Cleaning: Lawns, Rubbish removal	$586.50	Cleaning: Lawns, Rubbish removal
Replace smoke alarms	$50.00	Replace smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,302.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,302.11

Order

Rohit Malik and Kritagya Sharma must pay TBT Property Management Limited As Agent For Nishant Dogra $3,302.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears and rent owed to 14/03/2025$5,767.14 Water rates: to 29/01/2025$111.47 Cleaning: Lawns, Rubbish removal$586.50 Replace smoke alarms$50.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$6,542.11 Minus Bond$3,240.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,302.11
The claim for compensation for painting is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3240.00 to TBT Property Management Limited As Agent For Nishant Dogra immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference.
This is a rehearing pursuant to an order of the Tribunal dated 14 November 2025.
This tenancy commenced in July 2024. The parties, Rohit Malik and Kritagya Sharma, entered into a one-year fixed term tenancy to end on 10 July 2025.
Gaurav Kapoor and Mancy Kapoor also moved into the premises in about October 2024 and were added as tenants to the tenancy.
Rohit Malik left the premises in October 2024.
In January 2025 Gaurav Kapoor and Mancy Kapoor and Kritagya Sharma left the premises.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord is seeking orders against only Rohit Malik and Kritagya Sharma.
Rohit Malik and Kritagya Sharma dispute this and claim that the landlords wrongly removed Gaurav Kapoor and Mancy Kapoor as tenants.
There is no evidence that Gaurav Kapoor and Mancy Kapoor were formally removed as tenants.
Adjudicator Tam stated the following in paragraph 6 and 7 of the order made 14 November 2025 granting the rehearing: “6.For the avoidance of doubt, although there were initially 4 tenants to the fixed term tenancy, the landlord confirms that they are only seeking orders against the two named tenants Mr Malik and Mr Sharma in the proceedings filed herein.
It is not for the respondents Mr Malik and Mr Sharma to dictate whether other parties should be added to the landlord’s claims. Any defence by Mr Malik and Mr Sharma at the rehearing should be focused on why Mr Malik and Mr Sharma are not liable to the landlord on the landlord’s claims filed against them. “
As tenants are jointly and severally liable the landlord is entitled to seek orders against any of the tenants. The landlord claims therefore proceeded.
There is evidence of a dispute between the tenants and this may be dealt with if an application is filed in the Disputes Tribunal.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy to end on 10 July 2025.
Rohit Malik left the premises and returned overseas in October 2024 but remained as a party to the tenancy.
In January 2025 Gaurav Kapoor requested to be released from the tenancy early. Copies of communication involving all four tenants and the property manager were provided which took place in January and February 2025 but it appears that no clear agreements were reached. In any event the tenants Gaurav Kapoor and Mancy Kapoor left the premises. Mr Sharma stated that he did not know that Mr and Mrs Kapoor were also leaving until after he left also in January 2025. There was no written evidence that Mr Sharma had sought to end the fixed term tenancy. He explained that he left for financial reasons but did not return possession to the landlord.
The landlord filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal on 11 February 2025. The landlord sought to mitigate their losses by taking possession of the premises on 14 March 2025 when the matter had still not been heard in the Tribunal.
The landlord advised that rent was not being sought up until new tenants moved in but rent was sought to the date they took possession being 14 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 14 March 2025.
I find that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that rent is due to 14 March 2025 because all tenants vacated the premises without any formal agreement to end the fixed term early and the landlord sought to mitigate their losses by taking possession on 14 March 2025.
Tenants are responsible for water exclusively attributable to their usage. The landlord provided water rates invoice to 29 January 2025. I am satisfied the landlord has proved the amount owed to 29 January 2025 is attributable to the tenant usage but not the final water reading as this was taken over a month after the tenants were no longer living at the premises. Therefore, I order payment of the amount of $111.47.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Exit inspection photographs were provided. The tenant disputed that all the rubbish belonged to them although Mr Malik acknowledged that one item in the garage was his. Given the time since the parties left the premises until the rubbish removal, I accept that some of the rubbish around the exterior of the property may have been from outsiders and have reduced the amount of $230 sought for rubbish removal by half to $115. The amounts sought for cleaning ($402.50) and lawns ($69.00) are ordered as sought.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The smoke alarms.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to paintwork. (a)The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs and claimed that the tenant was responsible for marks on the paintwork and for damage caused by hooks left in the premises. (b)The tenant claimed that there were already marks on the walls when they moved in and that the hooks were also present at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant forwarded photographs labelled 28 July 2024 which showed marks on the paintwork and hooks present. (c)I have carefully considered the entry inspection report provided by the landlord and found that there are approximately seven hooks on the landlord entry photographs and some existing marks on the paintwork. (d)I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the damage claimed was caused by the tenant during this tenancy. Even if there are some further marks they are not beyond fair wear and tear for a premises occupied by four people. (e)The claim for compensation for painting is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
Because TBT Property Management Limited As Agent For Nishant Dogra has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5162171 — net $3,302.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears and rent owed to 14/03/2025	$5,767.14	Rent arrears and rent owed to 14/03/2025
Water rates: to 29/01/2025	$111.47	Water rates: to 29/01/2025
Cleaning: Lawns, Rubbish removal	$586.50	Cleaning: Lawns, Rubbish removal
Replace smoke alarms	$50.00	Replace smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,302.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,302.11

Order

Rohit Malik and Kritagya Sharma must pay TBT Property Management Limited As Agent For Nishant Dogra $3,302.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears and rent owed to 14/03/2025$5,767.14 Water rates: to 29/01/2025$111.47 Cleaning: Lawns, Rubbish removal$586.50 Replace smoke alarms$50.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$6,542.11 Minus Bond$3,240.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,302.11
The claim for compensation for painting is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3240.00 to TBT Property Management Limited As Agent For Nishant Dogra immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference.
This is a rehearing pursuant to an order of the Tribunal dated 14 November 2025.
This tenancy commenced in July 2024. The parties, Rohit Malik and Kritagya Sharma, entered into a one-year fixed term tenancy to end on 10 July 2025.
Gaurav Kapoor and Mancy Kapoor also moved into the premises in about October 2024 and were added as tenants to the tenancy.
Rohit Malik left the premises in October 2024.
In January 2025 Gaurav Kapoor and Mancy Kapoor and Kritagya Sharma left the premises.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord is seeking orders against only Rohit Malik and Kritagya Sharma.
Rohit Malik and Kritagya Sharma dispute this and claim that the landlords wrongly removed Gaurav Kapoor and Mancy Kapoor as tenants.
There is no evidence that Gaurav Kapoor and Mancy Kapoor were formally removed as tenants.
Adjudicator Tam stated the following in paragraph 6 and 7 of the order made 14 November 2025 granting the rehearing: “6.For the avoidance of doubt, although there were initially 4 tenants to the fixed term tenancy, the landlord confirms that they are only seeking orders against the two named tenants Mr Malik and Mr Sharma in the proceedings filed herein.
It is not for the respondents Mr Malik and Mr Sharma to dictate whether other parties should be added to the landlord’s claims. Any defence by Mr Malik and Mr Sharma at the rehearing should be focused on why Mr Malik and Mr Sharma are not liable to the landlord on the landlord’s claims filed against them. “
As tenants are jointly and severally liable the landlord is entitled to seek orders against any of the tenants. The landlord claims therefore proceeded.
There is evidence of a dispute between the tenants and this may be dealt with if an application is filed in the Disputes Tribunal.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy to end on 10 July 2025.
Rohit Malik left the premises and returned overseas in October 2024 but remained as a party to the tenancy.
In January 2025 Gaurav Kapoor requested to be released from the tenancy early. Copies of communication involving all four tenants and the property manager were provided which took place in January and February 2025 but it appears that no clear agreements were reached. In any event the tenants Gaurav Kapoor and Mancy Kapoor left the premises. Mr Sharma stated that he did not know that Mr and Mrs Kapoor were also leaving until after he left also in January 2025. There was no written evidence that Mr Sharma had sought to end the fixed term tenancy. He explained that he left for financial reasons but did not return possession to the landlord.
The landlord filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal on 11 February 2025. The landlord sought to mitigate their losses by taking possession of the premises on 14 March 2025 when the matter had still not been heard in the Tribunal.
The landlord advised that rent was not being sought up until new tenants moved in but rent was sought to the date they took possession being 14 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 14 March 2025.
I find that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that rent is due to 14 March 2025 because all tenants vacated the premises without any formal agreement to end the fixed term early and the landlord sought to mitigate their losses by taking possession on 14 March 2025.
Tenants are responsible for water exclusively attributable to their usage. The landlord provided water rates invoice to 29 January 2025. I am satisfied the landlord has proved the amount owed to 29 January 2025 is attributable to the tenant usage but not the final water reading as this was taken over a month after the tenants were no longer living at the premises. Therefore, I order payment of the amount of $111.47.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Exit inspection photographs were provided. The tenant disputed that all the rubbish belonged to them although Mr Malik acknowledged that one item in the garage was his. Given the time since the parties left the premises until the rubbish removal, I accept that some of the rubbish around the exterior of the property may have been from outsiders and have reduced the amount of $230 sought for rubbish removal by half to $115. The amounts sought for cleaning ($402.50) and lawns ($69.00) are ordered as sought.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The smoke alarms.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to paintwork. (a)The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs and claimed that the tenant was responsible for marks on the paintwork and for damage caused by hooks left in the premises. (b)The tenant claimed that there were already marks on the walls when they moved in and that the hooks were also present at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant forwarded photographs labelled 28 July 2024 which showed marks on the paintwork and hooks present. (c)I have carefully considered the entry inspection report provided by the landlord and found that there are approximately seven hooks on the landlord entry photographs and some existing marks on the paintwork. (d)I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the damage claimed was caused by the tenant during this tenancy. Even if there are some further marks they are not beyond fair wear and tear for a premises occupied by four people. (e)The claim for compensation for painting is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
Because TBT Property Management Limited As Agent For Nishant Dogra has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162171 — Rent arrears at 116B Kimpton Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162171 — Rent arrears at 116B Kimpton Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions