What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5336843?

The tribunal order states: LAVANYA KOMALAGIRI and PRAVEEN DASYAM must pay Bishesh Tuladhar

How much money was awarded in case 5336843?

Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,080.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336843?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13158726-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5336843?

The tribunal order states: LAVANYA KOMALAGIRI and PRAVEEN DASYAM must pay Bishesh Tuladhar

How much money was awarded in case 5336843?

Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,080.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336843?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13158726-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Whittle Place, New Windsor, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336843 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336843 — net $1,808.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$100.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$200.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes standards	$1,080.00	Healthy Homes standards
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment	$400.00	Quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,808.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,808.00

Order

LAVANYA KOMALAGIRI and PRAVEEN DASYAM must pay Bishesh Tuladhar and Lalung Dolma Dong $1,808.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 20 February 2026.
The tenant applied for compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the filing fee.
The tenancy commenced on 17 May 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 17 November 2025. The parties agreed for the tenancy to end early, and it ended on 22 August 2025. Bond not lodged
Bishesh Tuladhar and Lalung Dolma Dong claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement confirms that the bond for this tenancy was $760.00 which is equivalent to two weeks rent. The tenant produced evidence that the bond was paid to the landlord on 6 May 2025.
The landlord said that usually a bond is around three weeks of rent, so the money paid by the tenant was only to hold the property. She saw it as an advance rather than a bond and that is why it was not lodged.
It is not accepted that the money paid by the tenant was rent in advance. The tenancy agreement records that rent was paid one week in advance. If this payment was for rent in advance, then the tenant would have paid three weeks rent in advance which is an unlawful act as the landlord shall not require more than 2 weeks in advance 1 .
The parties agreed for the bond to be used for the last two weeks of rent but if there had not been agreement this may have caused an issue between the parties because the landlord had access to the bond money.
I do not accept that this was an advance of rent, and the tenancy agreement clearly records the intent of the parties that it was a bond payment. It should have been lodged with the Bond Centre and the landlord is likely to have known this because she had other tenants in the premises for a four-year period before these tenants.
After considering the evidence I award exemplary damages of $200.00. 1 Section 23(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Healthy Homes standards
Bishesh Tuladhar and Lalung Dolma Dong claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard, ventilation standard and moisture ingress and drainage standard
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy the compliance date was 1 July 2025.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to provide any form of heating and there was no extractor fans installed in either the kitchen or the bathroom. The premises flooded several times, and the cause of the flood was never determined by the landlord. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant provided evidence that he had purchased a heater to use because no heating was provided. The heater would have been small, portable and probably not particularly effective because it only cost $15. At the hearing the landlord said that she never constrained the tenant’s use of his heater. I note that the rent was inclusive of power.
The tenant said that the landlord had asked the tenant not to use the heater frequently and advised them to stay in bed under the blanket instead of using the heater. This was denied by the landlord. The tenant said that the premises was freezing and contributed to health issues for both.
The lack of mechanical ventilation meant that the tenants had to keep the doors open even during bad weather. At the hearing the landlord said that she thought the premises had enough ventilation from windows and doors but was in the process of putting in ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord did not provide any evidence to show that she was in the process of installing ventilation.
The tenant said that the premises had frequent episodes of flooding in the area used for washing dishes. They said that the landlord told them that the property was old, and the flooding was normal. The tenant submitted that the flooding contributed to cold, unhealthy living conditions. The issue was reported to the landlord and sometimes the landlord would assist with the clean-up. The tenant was not sure how many times it flooded but thought more than ten times. The tenant produced text messages 2 to the landlord with photographs of the flooding. At the hearing the landlord said that the flooding occurred four times. Even if the landlord’s estimate is accepted this is frequent for a short-term tenancy of just over three months. The landlord confirmed that the cause of the flooding has not been determined.
After considering the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes standards in relation to heating, ventilation and moisture ingress and drainage. I accept that the breach has had a significant impact on the tenant’s health and enjoyment of the premises.
The tenants stayed in the premises for just over 18 weeks and paid rent of $380.00. I consider exemplary damages of $1,080.00 is reasonable given the evidence and the circumstances. I have calculated this award at $60.00 per week for 18 weeks. 2 Dated 11 June 2025, 11 July 2025 and 29 July 2025 Quiet enjoyment
Bishesh Tuladhar and Lalung Dolma Dong claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord was aggressive and threatening in her communication with the tenant. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There was a dispute between the parties in relation to a cracked window. The landlord blamed the tenants for the broken window and sought payment from them for its repair. The tenant submitted evidence at the hearing showing that there was a small hole in the window at the beginning of the tenancy. By the end of the tenancy there was a large crack in the glass from the hole extending in both directions to the outside edge of the glass.
The landlord agreed that the hole (she referred to it as a dot) was present at the beginning of the tenancy and had in fact been there for the eight years that she owned the property. Given that this damage was present at the beginning of the tenancy and likely developed into a large crack through normal use it can be considered fair wear and tear for which the landlord is responsible for its repair.
When the landlord asked the tenant to pay for the repair the tenant quite rightly asked for an invoice. The landlord became angry with this request. The tenant described a phone call with the landlord where she became extremely angry and began shouting. The tenant recalls the landlord saying that she would come downstairs (the landlord lives upstairs in a separate premise) and break the window with a hammer so that the tenant would have to replace it again and obtain the invoice himself. The tenant said that this caused significant distress and fear because they could hear the landlord screaming and stomping upstairs.
At the hearing the landlord said that she did not think that she referred to a hammer, but the tenant was adamant that she had. I prefer the evidence of the tenant because the landlord appeared not to be certain.
After the call the tenant sent a text to the landlord about the issue. In a text in reply the landlord said, “Okay that was not a threat...I’m sorry if it sounded like a threat to you”.
The tenants submit that because of the landlord’s behaviour they felt anxious and unsafe remaining at the property. While the tenancy was due to end two days later, they packed immediately and moved out late that night. They managed to move into their new tenancy.
I am satisfied that the tenants were affected by the landlord’s behaviour and statement to the extent that they left the premises after midnight on 20 August 2025. I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $400.00 is reasonable. Compensation
As discussed above 3 there was a broken window at the premises when the tenancy ended.
The tenant had paid an extra week rent ($380.00) in error at the end of the tenancy. The landlord deducted $100.00 from the refunded overpaid rent to go toward the broken window.
The landlord did not produce any evidence of the cost of repairing the window but even if she had I am satisfied that this was not damage that the tenant is responsible for. For this reason, I refund the $100.00 that the landlord withheld from the tenant.
Because Bishesh Tuladhar, Lalung Dolma Dong has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336843 — net $1,808.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$100.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$200.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes standards	$1,080.00	Healthy Homes standards
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment	$400.00	Quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,808.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,808.00

Order

LAVANYA KOMALAGIRI and PRAVEEN DASYAM must pay Bishesh Tuladhar and Lalung Dolma Dong $1,808.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 20 February 2026.
The tenant applied for compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the filing fee.
The tenancy commenced on 17 May 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 17 November 2025. The parties agreed for the tenancy to end early, and it ended on 22 August 2025. Bond not lodged
Bishesh Tuladhar and Lalung Dolma Dong claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement confirms that the bond for this tenancy was $760.00 which is equivalent to two weeks rent. The tenant produced evidence that the bond was paid to the landlord on 6 May 2025.
The landlord said that usually a bond is around three weeks of rent, so the money paid by the tenant was only to hold the property. She saw it as an advance rather than a bond and that is why it was not lodged.
It is not accepted that the money paid by the tenant was rent in advance. The tenancy agreement records that rent was paid one week in advance. If this payment was for rent in advance, then the tenant would have paid three weeks rent in advance which is an unlawful act as the landlord shall not require more than 2 weeks in advance 1 .
The parties agreed for the bond to be used for the last two weeks of rent but if there had not been agreement this may have caused an issue between the parties because the landlord had access to the bond money.
I do not accept that this was an advance of rent, and the tenancy agreement clearly records the intent of the parties that it was a bond payment. It should have been lodged with the Bond Centre and the landlord is likely to have known this because she had other tenants in the premises for a four-year period before these tenants.
After considering the evidence I award exemplary damages of $200.00. 1 Section 23(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Healthy Homes standards
Bishesh Tuladhar and Lalung Dolma Dong claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard, ventilation standard and moisture ingress and drainage standard
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy the compliance date was 1 July 2025.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to provide any form of heating and there was no extractor fans installed in either the kitchen or the bathroom. The premises flooded several times, and the cause of the flood was never determined by the landlord. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant provided evidence that he had purchased a heater to use because no heating was provided. The heater would have been small, portable and probably not particularly effective because it only cost $15. At the hearing the landlord said that she never constrained the tenant’s use of his heater. I note that the rent was inclusive of power.
The tenant said that the landlord had asked the tenant not to use the heater frequently and advised them to stay in bed under the blanket instead of using the heater. This was denied by the landlord. The tenant said that the premises was freezing and contributed to health issues for both.
The lack of mechanical ventilation meant that the tenants had to keep the doors open even during bad weather. At the hearing the landlord said that she thought the premises had enough ventilation from windows and doors but was in the process of putting in ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord did not provide any evidence to show that she was in the process of installing ventilation.
The tenant said that the premises had frequent episodes of flooding in the area used for washing dishes. They said that the landlord told them that the property was old, and the flooding was normal. The tenant submitted that the flooding contributed to cold, unhealthy living conditions. The issue was reported to the landlord and sometimes the landlord would assist with the clean-up. The tenant was not sure how many times it flooded but thought more than ten times. The tenant produced text messages 2 to the landlord with photographs of the flooding. At the hearing the landlord said that the flooding occurred four times. Even if the landlord’s estimate is accepted this is frequent for a short-term tenancy of just over three months. The landlord confirmed that the cause of the flooding has not been determined.
After considering the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes standards in relation to heating, ventilation and moisture ingress and drainage. I accept that the breach has had a significant impact on the tenant’s health and enjoyment of the premises.
The tenants stayed in the premises for just over 18 weeks and paid rent of $380.00. I consider exemplary damages of $1,080.00 is reasonable given the evidence and the circumstances. I have calculated this award at $60.00 per week for 18 weeks. 2 Dated 11 June 2025, 11 July 2025 and 29 July 2025 Quiet enjoyment
Bishesh Tuladhar and Lalung Dolma Dong claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord was aggressive and threatening in her communication with the tenant. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There was a dispute between the parties in relation to a cracked window. The landlord blamed the tenants for the broken window and sought payment from them for its repair. The tenant submitted evidence at the hearing showing that there was a small hole in the window at the beginning of the tenancy. By the end of the tenancy there was a large crack in the glass from the hole extending in both directions to the outside edge of the glass.
The landlord agreed that the hole (she referred to it as a dot) was present at the beginning of the tenancy and had in fact been there for the eight years that she owned the property. Given that this damage was present at the beginning of the tenancy and likely developed into a large crack through normal use it can be considered fair wear and tear for which the landlord is responsible for its repair.
When the landlord asked the tenant to pay for the repair the tenant quite rightly asked for an invoice. The landlord became angry with this request. The tenant described a phone call with the landlord where she became extremely angry and began shouting. The tenant recalls the landlord saying that she would come downstairs (the landlord lives upstairs in a separate premise) and break the window with a hammer so that the tenant would have to replace it again and obtain the invoice himself. The tenant said that this caused significant distress and fear because they could hear the landlord screaming and stomping upstairs.
At the hearing the landlord said that she did not think that she referred to a hammer, but the tenant was adamant that she had. I prefer the evidence of the tenant because the landlord appeared not to be certain.
After the call the tenant sent a text to the landlord about the issue. In a text in reply the landlord said, “Okay that was not a threat...I’m sorry if it sounded like a threat to you”.
The tenants submit that because of the landlord’s behaviour they felt anxious and unsafe remaining at the property. While the tenancy was due to end two days later, they packed immediately and moved out late that night. They managed to move into their new tenancy.
I am satisfied that the tenants were affected by the landlord’s behaviour and statement to the extent that they left the premises after midnight on 20 August 2025. I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $400.00 is reasonable. Compensation
As discussed above 3 there was a broken window at the premises when the tenancy ended.
The tenant had paid an extra week rent ($380.00) in error at the end of the tenancy. The landlord deducted $100.00 from the refunded overpaid rent to go toward the broken window.
The landlord did not produce any evidence of the cost of repairing the window but even if she had I am satisfied that this was not damage that the tenant is responsible for. For this reason, I refund the $100.00 that the landlord withheld from the tenant.
Because Bishesh Tuladhar, Lalung Dolma Dong has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336843 — Healthy homes at 33 Whittle Place, New Windsor, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336843 — Healthy homes at 33 Whittle Place, New Windsor, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions