What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331539 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 5331539?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331539?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331539?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12871715-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331539 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 5331539?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331539?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331539?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12871715-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Belgrave Place, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331539 — Boarding House

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
is granted possession of the premises at immediately.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondents, Ms Vincent, Mr Ramsay and Ms Mojaria did not attend the hearing.
This application was filed on the 25 August 2025 and was first called on 9 October 2025. On 9 October 2025 the respondents were Ms Vincent and Mr Ramsay as the tenants of the property. Because their tenancy agreement, a “boarding house agreement” was signed by “Hemangi” (Hemangi Morjaria) as the landlord, and this person was known to the applicant, I directed that Ms Morjaria be joined as a party. The hearing was then adjourned to today's date.
On Wednesday 10 December 2025 Ms Vincent contacted the Tribunal to say that Ms Morjaria had not been served the hearing documents. Ms Vincent was therefore seeking and adjournment, presumably on Ms Morjaria’s behalf.
I arranged for the documents to be sent to Ms Morjaria immediately. The request for an adjournment was declined.
On Thursday 11 December 2025, Ms Morjaria requested an adjournment so she could familiarise herself with the documents that she had only just received.
I considered the request and declined it for the following reasons: a. The application is for immediate possession of the property and is already close to four months old, meaning there has already been some delay, (which I consider to be legitimate), b. It is very close to the hearing date and I consider there will be no prejudice in calling the matter and progressing the claim if at all possible, c. I spoke with Ms Morjaria during the hearing on 9 October 2025. This means she has been aware of the application and what it was about for two months, d. Ms Morjaria’s relevant information relating to this claim concerns her relationship as a property manager with the applicant, which is not complex and may not require documentation to establish. Whether or not the application actually needs to be adjourned could be decided in the course of today’s hearing.
At 9:18 am on the morning of the hearing Ms Vincent emailed the Tribunal to say she would not be attending the hearing due to medical reasons. No medical documentation was provided and no request for an adjournment was made. The claim
The applicant has applied for possession of the premises. He says the current tenants have no lawful authority to occupy the premises.
The applicant says that he purchased the property at 7 Belgrave Place, Papakura on 10 February 2022. He says he is the only person listed on the title, and the only person listed as the borrower on the mortgage documents. The applicant says the bank assessment and loan approval were based solely on his financial capacity, business performance, and assets. The applicant says that he has solely managed all legal, financial, and administrative responsibilities associated with the property.
The applicant says that he borrowed $55,000.00 from Ms Morjaria for the deposit of the property. Subsequently he has paid $21,700.00 back to Ms Morjaria.
The applicant says that in early 2025 he asked Ms Morjaria to look for tenants for 7 Belgrave Place, Papakura. Ms Morjaria put the applicant in contact with Mr Price, a property manager. Discussions were held with Mr Price but no agreement was signed by the applicant and Mr Price. Instead a property management agreement was signed by Ms Morjaria and Mr Price on 2 May 2025. The tenancy that was subsequently arranged was problematic and ended in an application to Tenancy Services.
The applicant says that in July 2025 he told Ms Morjaria not to allow the property to be rented out anymore as he wanted to move into it himself.
Despite this Ms Morjaria signed a “Boarding house agreement” with Ms Vincent and Mr Ramsey on 31 July 2025. The applicant says he did not give Ms Morjaria authority to do this, and therefore the agreement is unlawful.
Section 65(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) states that where 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.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement. See RTA, section 65(3).
There is no information before the Tribunal that purports to grant Ms Morjaria authority to arrange tenancies of any sort for 7 Belgrave Place, Papakura.
Therefore, I determine the “Boarding house agreement” between “Hemangi” (Ms Morjaria) as landlord, and Ms Vincent and Mr Ramsey as tenants is unlawful. I therefore order possession of the property to be granted to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
is granted possession of the premises at immediately.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondents, Ms Vincent, Mr Ramsay and Ms Mojaria did not attend the hearing.
This application was filed on the 25 August 2025 and was first called on 9 October 2025. On 9 October 2025 the respondents were Ms Vincent and Mr Ramsay as the tenants of the property. Because their tenancy agreement, a “boarding house agreement” was signed by “Hemangi” (Hemangi Morjaria) as the landlord, and this person was known to the applicant, I directed that Ms Morjaria be joined as a party. The hearing was then adjourned to today's date.
On Wednesday 10 December 2025 Ms Vincent contacted the Tribunal to say that Ms Morjaria had not been served the hearing documents. Ms Vincent was therefore seeking and adjournment, presumably on Ms Morjaria’s behalf.
I arranged for the documents to be sent to Ms Morjaria immediately. The request for an adjournment was declined.
On Thursday 11 December 2025, Ms Morjaria requested an adjournment so she could familiarise herself with the documents that she had only just received.
I considered the request and declined it for the following reasons: a. The application is for immediate possession of the property and is already close to four months old, meaning there has already been some delay, (which I consider to be legitimate), b. It is very close to the hearing date and I consider there will be no prejudice in calling the matter and progressing the claim if at all possible, c. I spoke with Ms Morjaria during the hearing on 9 October 2025. This means she has been aware of the application and what it was about for two months, d. Ms Morjaria’s relevant information relating to this claim concerns her relationship as a property manager with the applicant, which is not complex and may not require documentation to establish. Whether or not the application actually needs to be adjourned could be decided in the course of today’s hearing.
At 9:18 am on the morning of the hearing Ms Vincent emailed the Tribunal to say she would not be attending the hearing due to medical reasons. No medical documentation was provided and no request for an adjournment was made. The claim
The applicant has applied for possession of the premises. He says the current tenants have no lawful authority to occupy the premises.
The applicant says that he purchased the property at 7 Belgrave Place, Papakura on 10 February 2022. He says he is the only person listed on the title, and the only person listed as the borrower on the mortgage documents. The applicant says the bank assessment and loan approval were based solely on his financial capacity, business performance, and assets. The applicant says that he has solely managed all legal, financial, and administrative responsibilities associated with the property.
The applicant says that he borrowed $55,000.00 from Ms Morjaria for the deposit of the property. Subsequently he has paid $21,700.00 back to Ms Morjaria.
The applicant says that in early 2025 he asked Ms Morjaria to look for tenants for 7 Belgrave Place, Papakura. Ms Morjaria put the applicant in contact with Mr Price, a property manager. Discussions were held with Mr Price but no agreement was signed by the applicant and Mr Price. Instead a property management agreement was signed by Ms Morjaria and Mr Price on 2 May 2025. The tenancy that was subsequently arranged was problematic and ended in an application to Tenancy Services.
The applicant says that in July 2025 he told Ms Morjaria not to allow the property to be rented out anymore as he wanted to move into it himself.
Despite this Ms Morjaria signed a “Boarding house agreement” with Ms Vincent and Mr Ramsey on 31 July 2025. The applicant says he did not give Ms Morjaria authority to do this, and therefore the agreement is unlawful.
Section 65(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) states that where 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.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement. See RTA, section 65(3).
There is no information before the Tribunal that purports to grant Ms Morjaria authority to arrange tenancies of any sort for 7 Belgrave Place, Papakura.
Therefore, I determine the “Boarding house agreement” between “Hemangi” (Ms Morjaria) as landlord, and Ms Vincent and Mr Ramsey as tenants is unlawful. I therefore order possession of the property to be granted to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331539 — Boarding House at 7 Belgrave Place, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331539 — Boarding House at 7 Belgrave Place, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions