What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5426887?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Anmoldeep Kaur, Japdeep Singh, Anmol Sharma and Tejwant

How much money was awarded in case 5426887?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,320.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426887?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426887?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13480877-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5426887?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Anmoldeep Kaur, Japdeep Singh, Anmol Sharma and Tejwant

How much money was awarded in case 5426887?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,320.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426887?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426887?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13480877-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Moho Lane, Takanini, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426887 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426887 — net $2,348.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 April 2026	$2,320.00	Rent arrears to 25 April 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,348.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,348.00

Order

The tenancy of Anmoldeep Kaur, Japdeep Singh, Anmol Sharma and Tejwant Singh at 24 Moho Lane, Takanini, Takanini 2112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Compass Property Management Limited As Agent For Satbir Kaur, at 11.59pm on Saturday 25 April 2026.
Anmoldeep Kaur, Japdeep Singh, Anmol Sharma and Tejwant Singh must pay Compass Property Management Limited As Agent For Satbir Kaur $2,348.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants are Anmoldeep Kaur, Japdeep Singh, Anmol Sharma and Tejwant Singh.
Japdeep Singh and Anmol Sharma attended the hearing.
Ms Anmoldeep Kaur did not attend the hearing. Ms Kaur was not served with the application to her email address for service as stated in the tenancy agreement. The landlord said that when they attended the property early in 2026 Ms Kaur asked for her email address for service to be that of Anmol Sharma’s. The landlord did not retain the amended tenancy agreement noting the change of the email address for service. The email address for service provided with the application was that of Anmol Sharma. Mr Sharma attended the hearing and said he was attending on behalf of all tenants.
During the hearing Japdeep Singh was phoned and he also attended the hearing. Japdeep Singh is Anmoldeep Kaur’s husband and confirmed she was aware of the application.
I have heard this matter on the basis Ms Kaur has notice of the claim by way of email to Mr Sharma (that she advised the landlord should be her email address for service) and Mr Singh notifying her of the claim. 1 Ms Kaur will be served with this order to her email address for service as stated in the tenancy agreement. I also tried to call Tejwant Singh, but the phone call went to voice mail.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee. Termination
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. 2 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 breached their obligations by failing to pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 3
The landlord served a 14 day notice to remedy a breach on the tenant on 16 January 2026. The 14 days expired on 30 January 2026. The tenants did not remedy the breach. The landlord wants the tenancy to end.
The tenant said they could pay all the rent arrears the day after the hearing and sought a conditional termination order.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 4 the Court needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable 1 See RTA, s 91B (2). 2 See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 See section 40 (1) (a) RTA 4 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61]., to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant, being: a) The history of the tenancy. b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e) The conduct of the landlord. f) The gravity of the breach. g) Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I have considered these factors, and I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. This is because: a. The tenancy commenced in August 2025 and issues have arisen early into the tenancy in respect of rent arrears. I am not aware of any other 14-day notices for a breach being served on the tenants. b. I consider this to be a serious breach of the tenant’s obligations. c. Two of the tenant’s went overseas from approximately January – March 2026 and did not pay the rent. This gives me no confidence the tenants will comply with their obligation to pay rent moving forward. The breach appears deliberate. d. The landlord has acted appropriately. e. Rent remains in arrears when it should be in advance. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as the rent remains in arrears. f. I consider that termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenancy is terminated.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 5 The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing as at 25 April 2026. I have made this the termination date and orders rent arrears to that date. Filing fee 5 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 6
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenants applied for name suppression, however as they have been unsuccessful in defending the claim, I decline name suppression for the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426887 — net $2,348.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 April 2026	$2,320.00	Rent arrears to 25 April 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,348.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,348.00

Order

The tenancy of Anmoldeep Kaur, Japdeep Singh, Anmol Sharma and Tejwant Singh at 24 Moho Lane, Takanini, Takanini 2112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Compass Property Management Limited As Agent For Satbir Kaur, at 11.59pm on Saturday 25 April 2026.
Anmoldeep Kaur, Japdeep Singh, Anmol Sharma and Tejwant Singh must pay Compass Property Management Limited As Agent For Satbir Kaur $2,348.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants are Anmoldeep Kaur, Japdeep Singh, Anmol Sharma and Tejwant Singh.
Japdeep Singh and Anmol Sharma attended the hearing.
Ms Anmoldeep Kaur did not attend the hearing. Ms Kaur was not served with the application to her email address for service as stated in the tenancy agreement. The landlord said that when they attended the property early in 2026 Ms Kaur asked for her email address for service to be that of Anmol Sharma’s. The landlord did not retain the amended tenancy agreement noting the change of the email address for service. The email address for service provided with the application was that of Anmol Sharma. Mr Sharma attended the hearing and said he was attending on behalf of all tenants.
During the hearing Japdeep Singh was phoned and he also attended the hearing. Japdeep Singh is Anmoldeep Kaur’s husband and confirmed she was aware of the application.
I have heard this matter on the basis Ms Kaur has notice of the claim by way of email to Mr Sharma (that she advised the landlord should be her email address for service) and Mr Singh notifying her of the claim. 1 Ms Kaur will be served with this order to her email address for service as stated in the tenancy agreement. I also tried to call Tejwant Singh, but the phone call went to voice mail.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee. Termination
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. 2 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 breached their obligations by failing to pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 3
The landlord served a 14 day notice to remedy a breach on the tenant on 16 January 2026. The 14 days expired on 30 January 2026. The tenants did not remedy the breach. The landlord wants the tenancy to end.
The tenant said they could pay all the rent arrears the day after the hearing and sought a conditional termination order.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 4 the Court needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable 1 See RTA, s 91B (2). 2 See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 See section 40 (1) (a) RTA 4 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61]., to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant, being: a) The history of the tenancy. b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e) The conduct of the landlord. f) The gravity of the breach. g) Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I have considered these factors, and I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. This is because: a. The tenancy commenced in August 2025 and issues have arisen early into the tenancy in respect of rent arrears. I am not aware of any other 14-day notices for a breach being served on the tenants. b. I consider this to be a serious breach of the tenant’s obligations. c. Two of the tenant’s went overseas from approximately January – March 2026 and did not pay the rent. This gives me no confidence the tenants will comply with their obligation to pay rent moving forward. The breach appears deliberate. d. The landlord has acted appropriately. e. Rent remains in arrears when it should be in advance. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as the rent remains in arrears. f. I consider that termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenancy is terminated.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 5 The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing as at 25 April 2026. I have made this the termination date and orders rent arrears to that date. Filing fee 5 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 6
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenants applied for name suppression, however as they have been unsuccessful in defending the claim, I decline name suppression for the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426887 — Rent arrears at 24 Moho Lane, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426887 — Rent arrears at 24 Moho Lane, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions