What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5264400 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 5264400?

Details. 2. Jasu Mati Bhana And Step…: $6,527.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5264400?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5264400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12104110-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5264400 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 5264400?

Details. 2. Jasu Mati Bhana And Step…: $6,527.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5264400?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5264400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12104110-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5264400 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5264400 — net $6,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
details. 2. Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust Stephen Chiman Bhana to pay [The t	$6,527.00	details. 2. Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust Stephen Chiman Bhana to pay [The t
Net award	$6,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,527.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5264400 — net $6,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
details. 2. Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust Stephen Chiman Bhana to pay [The t	$6,527.00	details. 2. Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust Stephen Chiman Bhana to pay [The t
Net award	$6,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [The tenant/s] name and identifying details.
Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust Stephen Chiman Bhana to pay [The tenant/s] $6,527.00 immediately, being exemplary damages awarded below, and the application filing fee.
For six years from the date of this order, Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana, whether personally or through any company or trust they control, must not: a. retain any bond for longer than 23 working days without lodging it with the Bond Centre (s 19(1)(b)); or b. refuse to provide vacant possession or otherwise bring a tenancy to an end except strictly in accordance with the Act.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Stephen Bhana and Ms Jasu Bhana appeared by phone, as they were late to the hearing. [Tenant 1] appeared on behalf of the Tenants, with her representative, [The tenant’s representative], from the [City] Community Law Centre. [Tenant 2], [Tenant 1]’s son and co-tenant, was unavailable.
This dispute centres on whether the periodic tenancy signed late on 27 February 2025 ever took effect after the Tenants’ payments, and, if so, whether the Landlords then breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tenants allege Work and Income (WINZ) made the required payments on their behalf, the tenancy took effect, and the Landlords then breached their statutory duties. The Landlords dispute that any tenancy ever commenced.

Was a tenancy created?

Under s 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) a tenancy exists when there is (a) an agreement to grant a right to occupy residential premises and (b) consideration in the nature of rent. Once those two elements coexist, the Act applies (s 4) and any inconsistent contractual term is ineffective unless the Act allows it (s 11).
The agreement element was settled on 27 February. At midnight on 27 February the parties signed a periodic tenancy agreement. The only outstanding matter was the Landlords’ condition precedent – payment of four weeks’ bond and two weeks’ rent (cl W), nominally “by 5 p.m. Friday” (cl 5).
[Tenant 1]’s obligation was fully met on 28 February. 1 WINZ processed her entire bond and rent at 3.49pm on Friday, 2 and the Landlords do not dispute that this money reached their trust account overnight. Half of the total consideration was therefore in their bank account before the contractual deadline expired. 3
WINZ irrevocably authorised [Tenant 2] payment on the morning of 1 March. 4 From that moment the transfer could not be stopped or redirected without the Landlords’ cooperation. Legally the Tenants had done everything within their power to perform their part of the bargain, and the remaining delay lay entirely in the inter-bank settlement system.
At 9.14am on 1 March, [Tenant 1] texted Mr Bhana: “mine has been paid ... [Tenant 2] would have been paid also but you didn’t send him his tenancy until late.” Mr Bhana replied that “admin has checked and [Tenant 2] not paid” but made no suggestion that the contract was at an end.
Throughout 1 March, Mr Bhana received three further texts asking for the keys and confirmation of the tenancy, or for the funds to be redirected if the tenancy would not proceed. Mr Bhana answered only that he would “check with admin” on Monday,3 March. By declining to cancel and by indicating that clearance was 1 There is evidence from Work and Income that payments for both of the Tenants were authorised on Friday, 28 February 2025. 2 Affidavit of [Tenant 1] dated 19 June 2025; Attachment “B”. 3 An issue arises as to whether clauses 5 and W of the agreement are legally enforceable and/or equitable (unconscionable). 4 Affidavit of [Tenant 1] dated 19 June 2025; Attachment “C”. merely being verified, Mr Bhana waived strict reliance on clause 5 of the tenancy agreement (cleared funds by 5pm Friday), or, at the very least, varied the deadline to allow banking clearance.
Thought Mr Bhana did not accept the proposition, clause 5 served the Landlords’ interests only. By failing to confirm the agreement was off, on 1 March, or even 2 March, Mr Bhana waived the protection of that clause.
The agreement did not require the Tenant to confirm payment of cleared funds or provide any assurance that the bond and rent payments would not be reversed. Consequently, I find the Landlords were in constructive receipt of [Tenant 2]’s payment on 1 March 2025, even if the credit line appeared in their statement some hours later.
The Landlords acted as if the tenancy were alive on 1 and 2 March. On Sunday 2 March Mr Bhana texted: “May show up late Friday or Saturday. Admin will check tomorrow.” Had the deadline been absolute, the logical response would have been to cancel and refund. Instead, the Landlords treated the agreement as ongoing, confirming the waiver. Ms Jasu Bhana suggested they merely wanted to confirm they were right regarding the funds not having been received by the deadline, but that argument does not make sense to me.
By end of day 1 March all rent required by cl W was either in the Landlords’ account or irrevocably in transit and accepted by the Landlords as sufficient performance. The Landlords’ promise to grant possession therefore met consideration and the tenancy came into existence.
Even if the credit appeared in the Landlords’ bank account in the early hours of Monday 3 March, the tenancy had already crystallised. The Landlords’ continued refusal to release the key after 1 March 2025 was therefore an unlawful denial of vacant possession under the Act. Did the Landlord fail to issue a bond receipt and lodge the Tenants’ bond?
The Tenants allege the Landlords breached section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) by failing to issue a written receipt and by failing to lodge the bond within 23 working days.
Section 19(1)(a) requires a landlord to give the payer a written receipt for any bond payment “as soon as practicable”. Section 19(1)(b) then requires the landlord to forward the bond to the Bond Centre within 23 working days.
Breaching either limb of section 19(1) is an unlawful act and may attract exemplary damages up to $1,500.00: section 19(2) and Schedule 1A.
The landlords provided no receipt and did not lodge the bond; instead, they held it until 4 June – well beyond the 23-day limit. I therefore find both limbs of section 19(1) were breached and that two unlawful acts were committed.
Under section 109(3) the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the unlawful act was intentional and it is just to do so, having regard to four mandatory factors: intent, effect, interests of the other party and public interest.
The Landlords are experienced, have appeared before the Tribunal on previous s 19 claims, and knowingly chose not to lodge the bond in this instance. I find, on balance, the Landlord received but did not lodge the bond, and that this was primarily done to deny the Tenants’ claim of a valid tenancy.
The effect on the tenants was significant. Without a lodged bond number, they could not obtain a new WINZ bond, remained homeless for several nights and continued to repay the first bond debt at roughly $13 a week.
Mr Bhana said [Tenant 1] could simply move back to her previous backpackers accommodation. When I phoned the manager, [Backpackers manager], he confirmed [Tenant 1] week-to-week booking had ended, and the rent was paid up to 2 April 2025. [Tenant 2] had been permanently evicted for failing to comply with house rules. [Backpackers manager] confirmed [Tenant 1] was a good tenant, tidy and respectful, and he confirmed he had told Mr Bhana that she could move back to premises and stay for as long as she required it. Importantly, Mr Bhana, on his own evidence, contacted [Backpackers manager] to ask if [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] could stay at the backpackers for two nights while payment was confirmed, showing he still expected the bond to clear and that the tenancy would proceed once it did.
[Tenant 1] accepted she might have secured accommodation there, yet the space was extremely small and lacked proper ventilation, which had exacerbated her respiratory issues, and she felt responsible for her son, who has ADHD. While the Landlord cast his as “self-inflicted,” in practical terms the option of alternative accommodation was illusory.
Tenants have a strong interest in prompt bond lodgement because it protects their money and is often their ticket into another tenancy when arrangements fall over, as in this case. The public also has an interest in Landlords adhering to the bond regime.
Balancing those factors, exemplary damages of $1,000.00 for failing to lodge the bond are just and proportionate.

Did the Landlords terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The Tenants further claim the Landlords breached section 60AA by bringing the tenancy to an end, or purporting to do so, knowing they were not entitled to terminate.
Section 60AA makes it an unlawful act for a landlord, without reasonable excuse, to give a notice to terminate or to take steps to terminate a tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so. The maximum exemplary damages are $6,500.00.
By 1 March the landlords had accepted all rent and bond. They nevertheless refused to hand over keys, showed the property to another person (albeit “very brief[ly],” Mr Bhana said), and told the tenants to “wait half an hour”. 5 Later that day, at the library, Mr Bhana refused the Tenants’ request for the keys again. The parties give conflicting dates and accounts of the library meeting, so it remains unclear whether Mr Bhana actually told the tenants, “You are evicted.” 6 No notice complying with s 51 or any other termination ground was served.
The intentional denial of possession, failure to lodge the bond, which resulted in the Tenant living in her car and not at the premises, amount to a constructive termination in my view – an assertion, by the Landlord, that the tenancy had ended when, in law, it had not.
I find the landlords committed an unlawful act under section 60AA.
Applying section 109(3): a. Intent – the Landlords were aware their only ground was clause 5; they had nevertheless encouraged the tenants to wait for banking confirmation. When they later refused keys they did so deliberately. Worse still, the Landlords claim clause 5 was inserted at the Tenants’ request and for their benefit – a self-serving delusion, in my view. b. Effect – the Tenants claim they spent several nights sleeping in their vehicle and, while the bond remained un-lodged, could not secure further WINZ assistance. [Backpackers manager] told the Tribunal [Tenant 1] could have taken another bed at the backpackers, but she chose not to return without her son, who was banned from the accommodation. She regards her son and herself as a “package deal.” The Landlord expressed the view [Tenant 1] was controlling of [Tenant 2], talking for him and pulling him away from conversations with the Landlord. However, overall, I find that the Tenants’ security of tenure was wholly undermined to the detriment of their stability and wellbeing. c. Public interest – deliberate terminations like this undermine the statutory scheme and must be deterred.
Having regard to those factors the appropriate exemplary award is $5,500.00.

Was clause 5 harsh or unconscionable?

If I am wrong regarding the formation of the tenancy on the basis of constructive receipt by the Landlord of the required payments of bond and rent on 1 March 5 Affidavit of [Tenant 1] dated 19 June 2025 at [20]. 6 This was not spoken by [Tenant 1] in evidence, nor was it in her Affidavit. It is found in the submissions of [Tenant 1’s] representative dated 15 May 2025 at [6.2]. It was not put to Mr Bhana in evidence whether he said these words to [Tenant 1]. 2025, I would have declared clause 5 harsh or unconscionable pursuant to s 78(1)(f) and upheld a tenancy.
Clause W lawfully required bond and rent before entry, but clause 5 added an almost-impossible deadline, payment within hours of a near-midnight signing that followed a five-hour, marathon interview with Mr Bhana.
Mr Bhana was insistent that Clause W was inserted at the Tenant’s request, to create urgency and hurry WINZ along, but his choosing to rely on that clause to deny a tenancy, despite inter-bank and WINZ delays, is another thing altogether. The clause operated to place all risk of administrative delay on the Tenants even though, once the funds arrived, the Landlords would have the full four-weeks’ bond as security.
Under section 78(1)(f) the Tribunal may refuse to enforce a term that is harsh or unconscionable. I find clause 5 meets that description and decline to enforce it. Even if clause 5 were enforceable, the Landlords’ subsequent conduct amounted to a clear waiver of the deadline. Conclusion
A tenancy existed from 1 March 2025.
The bond and advance rent of $4,140.00 have already been refunded; the claim is therefore allowed on that point with no further monetary order.
Exemplary damages totalling $6,500.00 are awarded: $1,000.00 for failure to lodge the bond, and $5,500.00 for unlawful termination.
The Landlords must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00.
Having found deliberate and repeat breaches in the case of these Landlords, I am satisfied the statutory criteria in s 109A are met. The Landlords’ conduct was intentional, the Tenants suffered real hardship, and there is a clear risk of similar non-compliance in future. Accordingly, under s 109A I issue a Restraining Order on the terms set out above. Explanation for the Landlords
Taking the bond yet refusing keys placed you squarely within the Act. Your texts on 1–3 March show you knew the agreement (prospect of a tenancy) was still alive, so the rigid reliance on the 5pm (28 February) deadline cannot stand. Once bound, you had to provide possession and handle the bond exactly as the Act prescribes. Because you intentionally chose otherwise, exemplary damages follow.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5264400 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5264400 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was a tenancy created?

Did the Landlords terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Was clause 5 harsh or unconscionable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was a tenancy created?

Did the Landlords terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Was clause 5 harsh or unconscionable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions