What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5342163?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Raupuriri Maaka at Unit/Flat 10J, 113 Vincent Street, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5342163?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342163?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342163?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13191152-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5342163?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Raupuriri Maaka at Unit/Flat 10J, 113 Vincent Street, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5342163?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342163?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342163?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13191152-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 10J, 113 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5342163 — Property damage

Order

The tenancy of Raupuriri Maaka at Unit/Flat 10J, 113 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, Winsun Heights is terminated, and possession is granted to Hemal Prakash Shukla, immediately.
Raupuriri Maaka must pay Hemal Prakash Shukla $20,513.65 immediately, being rent arrears to 24 February 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond.
This is a rehearing. The bond was previously refunded to the Landlord in the initial hearing. At this rehearing the Landlord added further claims for compensation.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay the Body Corporate fees for anti-social behaviour and damages caused by the Tenant.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 24 April 2025 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the Tenant has incurred a substantial amount of fees incurred by the Body Corporate due to their alleged anti-social behaviour which has been ongoing since February 2026. The Landlord instructs the Tenant or his associates of the Tenant may still be occupying the property despite a 90 day notice being provided to the Tenant on 6 June 2025. Rent arrears
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing up to 24 February 2026. Compensation- infringements
The Tenant is liable to pay the Landlord for the multiple infringements of the body corporate rules caused by the Tenant and their guests. The Landlord has provided invoices and photographs of the Tenant taken by the building surveillance cameras. These charges have been sent to the Landlord and the Tenant is liable to reimburse the charges.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Landlord has submitted claims for rubbish removal, cleaning, replacement of the damaged balcony door, and replacement of the shower door and shower head. It is noted that the Landlord inspected the property in or around February 2026; however, the volume of rubbish and the condition of the balcony door, shower door, and shower head may have changed in the intervening period. For this reason, these claims should be reassessed now that the tenancy has concluded and vacant possession has been returned to the Landlord. The Landlord can then determine if they need to file a further application.
These claims are dismissed.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damaged door and damaged neighbours door. The Tenant and his visitors were involved in a physical altercation which caused damage to both doors. Invoices were provided for the repair the doors. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As Hemal Prakash Shukla has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342163 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 10J, 113 Vincent Street, Auckland Central,

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342163 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 10J, 113 Vincent Street, Auckland Central,

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?