What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5044749 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5044749?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5044749?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5044749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11088957-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5044749 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5044749?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5044749?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5044749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11088957-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5044749 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5044749 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The applicants] are granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] as at 3:00pm on Friday 15 November 2024.
The applicants’ are granted leave to enforce the possession order immediately. (Refer to District Court Act 2016, s138(1)(b)).
Ranjita Shivani Prasad, Baldeep Singh Aujila must pay [the applicants] $27.00 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

The applicants attended the hearing. The respondents did not.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises as the tenants are squatting in the premise without authority to be in possession of the premise. Late request for an adjournment denied
I am satisfied that the respondents had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The female respondent (Ms Prasad) called the contact centre at 10:35am this morning and said she had to attend her best friend’s funeral today. She did not email the registry with a request for an adjournment, nor did she provide any evidence to support her claim or to support why she sought the adjournment so close to the hearing time of 2pm when it is likely the funeral had been arranged days ago.
In addition, there was no application by the male respondent for an adjournment and no reason provided why he could not attend the hearing on both the respondents’ behalf.
The request for an adjournment was denied around 12:30pm as time is of the essence for the applicants to sell the property before it incurs any further default costs from the ASB Bank, to whom it has undertaken to sell the property promptly to repay the mortgage.
On balance, I find the need for the applicants to have the hearing today, to allow it to put its case to the Tribunal for expedited vacant possession, outweighed the female respondent’s need to attend a funeral. As such, the hearing went ahead in the respondents’ absence. Background
The applicants are the current Trustees of the [Name suppressed].
The respondents are the occupants of the [name suppressed] property located at [address suppressed].
The applicants have confirmed Baldeep Singh Aujila was an [name suppressed] Trustee until he was removed as a Trustee by way of Notice of Removal of Trustee on 20 September 2024. Removal of his name from the property title is yet to be completed. However, he has no legal rights to the premise.
The respondent says it purchased the premise with the agreement that Baldeep Singh Aujila and his partner would occupy it and pay the ASB Bank mortgage (as a type of rent) with a long-term plan being that they would purchase it once they could get finance to do so. Baldeep Singh Aujila was added as a Trustee simultaneously with [name suppressed]’s purchase of this property.
The respondents confirm Baldeep Singh Aujila and Ranjita Shivani Prasad have occupied the premise since September 2020 and for about 12 months they kept up with the mortgage repayments.
The evidence proves from September 2021, Baldeep Singh Aujila and Ranjita Shivani Prasad defaulted on the mortgage repayments and the ASB bank issued [name suppressed] a Property Law Notice on 13 September 2021 for outstanding arrears of $142,773.30 and gave [name suppressed] a deadline of 23 October 2024 to repay the debt.
On 18 October 2024, a request for an extension of time to repay the debt was sent to the ASB Bank on the basis that a cash sum of $50,000.00 was paid immediately and the house placed on the market for sale.
The respondents have shown the ASB Bank has agreed to defer enforcing the PLA Notice for a month on the condition the [name suppressed] premise is listed and sold by auction and that there are two other [name suppressed] properties linked to the mortgage on [address suppressed]. The PLA Notice is against all three properties.
When [name suppressed] received the PLA Notice, it says it became aware for the first time that Baldeep Singh Aujila and Ranjita Shivani Prasad had used the premise as security for a personal loan with Prospa NZ Limited against the interest of Baldeep Singh Aujila in the premise and Prospa NZ Limited have consequently taken a caveat over the premise as security. The respondents have also defaulted on this personal loan.
On 30 September 2024, the respondents have proven that [name suppressed] advised [name suppressed]’s lawyers that the respondents were refusing to vacate the premise and were being obstructive to the real estate agents trying to sell the premise in time to meet [name suppressed]’s undertakings to the ASB Bank.
On 8 October 2024, [name suppressed]’s lawyers wrote to the respondents requiring them to vacate the premise immediately in order for it to be sold. They were also advised the premise had been listed with Harcourts for sale and their cooperation with the sale was required.
Harcourts confirms it has taken prospective buyers to view the premise and the respondents have continued to be obstructive and non-cooperative. Ranjita Shivani Prasad has informed [name suppressed]’s lawyers she will not vacate the premise and refuses to let any prospective buyers enter the master bedroom.
AFT’s lawyers say Baldeep Singh Aujila has taken a similar stance and has signed a consent to the application for possession order confirming he will only vacate the premise upon the possession order being granted.
I am satisfied that [name suppressed] has been unable to obtain vacant possession and has been unable to ready the premise for sale as a direct consequence of the respondents’ refusal to vacate the premise. Should possession be granted to [name suppressed]
Section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Eviction of squatters) states: (1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
Section 65 of the RTA does not allow the Tribunal to grant an order for possession if the premises are not residential premises. However, if the premises are residential premises, the Tribunal has jurisdiction even if there is no tenancy agreement. 1
[Applicant’s name suppressed] own [addressed suppressed] and are required to manage the property in a way that protects the best interest of the [name suppressed] beneficiaries. It has granted the respondents the right to occupy this residential premise on the condition they pay the mortgage on it, as a form of rent, in full and on time. The respondents have failed to meet these conditions of occupation. In addition, Baldeep Singh Aujila and Ranjita Shivani Prasad are not Trustees of [name suppressed], and therefore they have no legal right to continue to occupy the premise.
In Brooks v Page, the Tribunal granted possession to an owner who had revoked the right of occupation of a former co-owner. 2 As in the Brooks case, Baldeep Singh Aujila’s name remaining on the title of the premise does not mean he has any legal right personally to the [name suppressed] property. He was listed on the title as an ex-trustee whose name is in the process of being removed from the title.
In addition, a Trustee does not personally own trust assets, the trustees own the trust assets collectively for the benefit of the beneficiaries.
I find that Baldeep Singh Aujila and Ranjita Shivani Prasad are squatters with no legal right to continue to occupy the residential premise located at [address suppressed] and possession should be granted to the respondents, pursuant to s65 of the RTA. 1 RTA 1986, s65(3); Waipari Station Ltd v Fox-Warren [2014] NZTT Hastings 1300 at [7]. 2 Brooks v Page NZTT Wellington TT396/87, 24 November 1987 at [3].
Baldeep Singh Aujila and Ranjita Shivani Prasad’s right to occupy ceases and possession is granted to [applicant’s name suppressed] as at 3:00pm on Friday 15 November 2024.
Section 138(1)(a) of the District Court Act 2016 provides that the respondents may not enforce this possession order for 48 hours. Section 138(1)(b) allows me to grant leave to enforce the possession order immediately.
The applicants have provided evidence that supports its claim that Ms Prasad has already caused some damage to the premise and has threatened to do more damage if she is evicted from the premise. The applicants’ have satisfied me that there is a risk that Ms Prasad will carrying through with her threat to cause considerable damage to the premise if the eviction and possession process is delayed by 48 hours. Therefore, I grant the applicants’ application to have immediate possession of the premises at [address suppressed] Filing fee
Because [the applicants] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Costs
The applicants have made an application for costs at today’s hearing. Costs are reserved and the applicants’ are instructed to make submissions on the issue of costs to me by 5pm on Monday 25 November 2024 by emailing these submissions to aucklandmetrotenancy@justice.govt.nz and citing application number 5044749. These submissions must also be emailed to the respondents.
I will allow the respondents’ five working days to make submissions on the issue of costs, and thereafter will make a decision in relation to costs on the papers.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5044749 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The applicants] are granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] as at 3:00pm on Friday 15 November 2024.
The applicants’ are granted leave to enforce the possession order immediately. (Refer to District Court Act 2016, s138(1)(b)).
Ranjita Shivani Prasad, Baldeep Singh Aujila must pay [the applicants] $27.00 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

The applicants attended the hearing. The respondents did not.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises as the tenants are squatting in the premise without authority to be in possession of the premise. Late request for an adjournment denied
I am satisfied that the respondents had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The female respondent (Ms Prasad) called the contact centre at 10:35am this morning and said she had to attend her best friend’s funeral today. She did not email the registry with a request for an adjournment, nor did she provide any evidence to support her claim or to support why she sought the adjournment so close to the hearing time of 2pm when it is likely the funeral had been arranged days ago.
In addition, there was no application by the male respondent for an adjournment and no reason provided why he could not attend the hearing on both the respondents’ behalf.
The request for an adjournment was denied around 12:30pm as time is of the essence for the applicants to sell the property before it incurs any further default costs from the ASB Bank, to whom it has undertaken to sell the property promptly to repay the mortgage.
On balance, I find the need for the applicants to have the hearing today, to allow it to put its case to the Tribunal for expedited vacant possession, outweighed the female respondent’s need to attend a funeral. As such, the hearing went ahead in the respondents’ absence. Background
The applicants are the current Trustees of the [Name suppressed].
The respondents are the occupants of the [name suppressed] property located at [address suppressed].
The applicants have confirmed Baldeep Singh Aujila was an [name suppressed] Trustee until he was removed as a Trustee by way of Notice of Removal of Trustee on 20 September 2024. Removal of his name from the property title is yet to be completed. However, he has no legal rights to the premise.
The respondent says it purchased the premise with the agreement that Baldeep Singh Aujila and his partner would occupy it and pay the ASB Bank mortgage (as a type of rent) with a long-term plan being that they would purchase it once they could get finance to do so. Baldeep Singh Aujila was added as a Trustee simultaneously with [name suppressed]’s purchase of this property.
The respondents confirm Baldeep Singh Aujila and Ranjita Shivani Prasad have occupied the premise since September 2020 and for about 12 months they kept up with the mortgage repayments.
The evidence proves from September 2021, Baldeep Singh Aujila and Ranjita Shivani Prasad defaulted on the mortgage repayments and the ASB bank issued [name suppressed] a Property Law Notice on 13 September 2021 for outstanding arrears of $142,773.30 and gave [name suppressed] a deadline of 23 October 2024 to repay the debt.
On 18 October 2024, a request for an extension of time to repay the debt was sent to the ASB Bank on the basis that a cash sum of $50,000.00 was paid immediately and the house placed on the market for sale.
The respondents have shown the ASB Bank has agreed to defer enforcing the PLA Notice for a month on the condition the [name suppressed] premise is listed and sold by auction and that there are two other [name suppressed] properties linked to the mortgage on [address suppressed]. The PLA Notice is against all three properties.
When [name suppressed] received the PLA Notice, it says it became aware for the first time that Baldeep Singh Aujila and Ranjita Shivani Prasad had used the premise as security for a personal loan with Prospa NZ Limited against the interest of Baldeep Singh Aujila in the premise and Prospa NZ Limited have consequently taken a caveat over the premise as security. The respondents have also defaulted on this personal loan.
On 30 September 2024, the respondents have proven that [name suppressed] advised [name suppressed]’s lawyers that the respondents were refusing to vacate the premise and were being obstructive to the real estate agents trying to sell the premise in time to meet [name suppressed]’s undertakings to the ASB Bank.
On 8 October 2024, [name suppressed]’s lawyers wrote to the respondents requiring them to vacate the premise immediately in order for it to be sold. They were also advised the premise had been listed with Harcourts for sale and their cooperation with the sale was required.
Harcourts confirms it has taken prospective buyers to view the premise and the respondents have continued to be obstructive and non-cooperative. Ranjita Shivani Prasad has informed [name suppressed]’s lawyers she will not vacate the premise and refuses to let any prospective buyers enter the master bedroom.
AFT’s lawyers say Baldeep Singh Aujila has taken a similar stance and has signed a consent to the application for possession order confirming he will only vacate the premise upon the possession order being granted.
I am satisfied that [name suppressed] has been unable to obtain vacant possession and has been unable to ready the premise for sale as a direct consequence of the respondents’ refusal to vacate the premise. Should possession be granted to [name suppressed]
Section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Eviction of squatters) states: (1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
Section 65 of the RTA does not allow the Tribunal to grant an order for possession if the premises are not residential premises. However, if the premises are residential premises, the Tribunal has jurisdiction even if there is no tenancy agreement. 1
[Applicant’s name suppressed] own [addressed suppressed] and are required to manage the property in a way that protects the best interest of the [name suppressed] beneficiaries. It has granted the respondents the right to occupy this residential premise on the condition they pay the mortgage on it, as a form of rent, in full and on time. The respondents have failed to meet these conditions of occupation. In addition, Baldeep Singh Aujila and Ranjita Shivani Prasad are not Trustees of [name suppressed], and therefore they have no legal right to continue to occupy the premise.
In Brooks v Page, the Tribunal granted possession to an owner who had revoked the right of occupation of a former co-owner. 2 As in the Brooks case, Baldeep Singh Aujila’s name remaining on the title of the premise does not mean he has any legal right personally to the [name suppressed] property. He was listed on the title as an ex-trustee whose name is in the process of being removed from the title.
In addition, a Trustee does not personally own trust assets, the trustees own the trust assets collectively for the benefit of the beneficiaries.
I find that Baldeep Singh Aujila and Ranjita Shivani Prasad are squatters with no legal right to continue to occupy the residential premise located at [address suppressed] and possession should be granted to the respondents, pursuant to s65 of the RTA. 1 RTA 1986, s65(3); Waipari Station Ltd v Fox-Warren [2014] NZTT Hastings 1300 at [7]. 2 Brooks v Page NZTT Wellington TT396/87, 24 November 1987 at [3].
Baldeep Singh Aujila and Ranjita Shivani Prasad’s right to occupy ceases and possession is granted to [applicant’s name suppressed] as at 3:00pm on Friday 15 November 2024.
Section 138(1)(a) of the District Court Act 2016 provides that the respondents may not enforce this possession order for 48 hours. Section 138(1)(b) allows me to grant leave to enforce the possession order immediately.
The applicants have provided evidence that supports its claim that Ms Prasad has already caused some damage to the premise and has threatened to do more damage if she is evicted from the premise. The applicants’ have satisfied me that there is a risk that Ms Prasad will carrying through with her threat to cause considerable damage to the premise if the eviction and possession process is delayed by 48 hours. Therefore, I grant the applicants’ application to have immediate possession of the premises at [address suppressed] Filing fee
Because [the applicants] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Costs
The applicants have made an application for costs at today’s hearing. Costs are reserved and the applicants’ are instructed to make submissions on the issue of costs to me by 5pm on Monday 25 November 2024 by emailing these submissions to aucklandmetrotenancy@justice.govt.nz and citing application number 5044749. These submissions must also be emailed to the respondents.
I will allow the respondents’ five working days to make submissions on the issue of costs, and thereafter will make a decision in relation to costs on the papers.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5044749 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5044749 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions