What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5282922?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5282922?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282922?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282922?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13250750-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5282922?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5282922?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282922?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282922?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13250750-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

52 Wheturangi Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5282922 — Cleanliness

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 17 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order for water rates, cleaning and reimbursement of the filing fee. The Tribunal dismissed claims for lawnmowing/ gardening, and for repairing a bathroom floor.
On 23 November 2025, Gautam Jindal applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: a. “The Adjudicator made findings which were not supported by evidence; the adjudicator admitted evidence in an unfair and improper manner,” b. “There was no basis for the finding made by the adjudicator; this is a manifest error of law which is reviewable,” c. “I have checked with my builder, new evidence has come to light which rejects the findng made by the Adjudicator.”
In the hearing Mr Jindal said he was seeking a rehearing because a. he considered my decision to not award compensation for gardening was wrong in law, and b. he had two pieces of expert evidence that weren’t available at the original hearing.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Mr Jindal’s claim that my decision regarding compensation for gardening is incorrect in law, may be grounds for an appeal but does not meet the test for a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The basis of Mr Jindal’s application regarding this claim is that I have misunderstood the law. Mr Jindal attended the hearing and presented his case. I heard the facts of this claim and I applied the law to them. No new information has been raised subsequently. If the Tribunal’s decision on this matter is incorrect, the remedy is to seek an appeal.
Mr Jindal’s second claim concerns my finding that he failed to prove in the original hearing that the tenants’ conduct caused the damage to the bathroom floor.
The information that Mr Jindal says has come to light is a report from his builder Mr Johar, dated 26 November 2025. This date is after the date of the hearing, and also after the date of Mr Jindal’s application for a rehearing.
The information provided by Mr Johar is not new information, but an opinion in support of Mr Jindal’s position at the hearing. The information does include more information regarding Building Code compliance, but this is also information that was available at the time of the hearing; Mr Jindal may not have included the information because he may have thought it wouldn’t be necessary. This is an attempt to strengthen his claim after the Tribunal’s decision has been made.
Having read the information provided by Mr Johar I am not persuaded that it would have led to me reaching a different decision in any event.
The other piece of expert information is a builder’s certificate which was included in the original application and as such was also available at the time of the original hearing.
Mr Jindal has not persuaded me that grounds for a rehearing exist.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 17 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order for water rates, cleaning and reimbursement of the filing fee. The Tribunal dismissed claims for lawnmowing/ gardening, and for repairing a bathroom floor.
On 23 November 2025, Gautam Jindal applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: a. “The Adjudicator made findings which were not supported by evidence; the adjudicator admitted evidence in an unfair and improper manner,” b. “There was no basis for the finding made by the adjudicator; this is a manifest error of law which is reviewable,” c. “I have checked with my builder, new evidence has come to light which rejects the findng made by the Adjudicator.”
In the hearing Mr Jindal said he was seeking a rehearing because a. he considered my decision to not award compensation for gardening was wrong in law, and b. he had two pieces of expert evidence that weren’t available at the original hearing.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Mr Jindal’s claim that my decision regarding compensation for gardening is incorrect in law, may be grounds for an appeal but does not meet the test for a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The basis of Mr Jindal’s application regarding this claim is that I have misunderstood the law. Mr Jindal attended the hearing and presented his case. I heard the facts of this claim and I applied the law to them. No new information has been raised subsequently. If the Tribunal’s decision on this matter is incorrect, the remedy is to seek an appeal.
Mr Jindal’s second claim concerns my finding that he failed to prove in the original hearing that the tenants’ conduct caused the damage to the bathroom floor.
The information that Mr Jindal says has come to light is a report from his builder Mr Johar, dated 26 November 2025. This date is after the date of the hearing, and also after the date of Mr Jindal’s application for a rehearing.
The information provided by Mr Johar is not new information, but an opinion in support of Mr Jindal’s position at the hearing. The information does include more information regarding Building Code compliance, but this is also information that was available at the time of the hearing; Mr Jindal may not have included the information because he may have thought it wouldn’t be necessary. This is an attempt to strengthen his claim after the Tribunal’s decision has been made.
Having read the information provided by Mr Johar I am not persuaded that it would have led to me reaching a different decision in any event.
The other piece of expert information is a builder’s certificate which was included in the original application and as such was also available at the time of the original hearing.
Mr Jindal has not persuaded me that grounds for a rehearing exist.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282922 — Cleanliness at 52 Wheturangi Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282922 — Cleanliness at 52 Wheturangi Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions