What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5349882 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5349882?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5349882?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5349882?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12742857-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5349882 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5349882?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5349882?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5349882?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12742857-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit E, 14 Sunlands Drive, Manurewa, Manukau 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5349882 — Harassment

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 10 October 2025 sets out the background to this application.
The second hearing took place by video on 19 November 2025.
Per the previous order, notice of this hearing and a full copy of the landlord’s claim was sent to the tenants. Mr Raphael Agarbattiwala and Ms Mumtaj Agarbattiwala (representing the landlord) participated in the hearing.
The tenants did not link in to the video hearing. I attempted to phone the tenants on the two mobile numbers provided. I was unable to reach either tenant. I am satisfied that the tenants received notice of the hearing. They did not request an adjournment or indicate that they would be unavailable. The hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence. Discussion
The Tenancy Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy if: 1 a. The tenant has breached a term of the tenancy agreement or of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”); and b. If the breach is capable of being remedied, the landlord has given the tenant a notice describing the breach and giving the tenant a reasonable period of time (not less than 14-days) to remedy it; and c. The breach has not been remedied within the notice period, or the breach is not capable of being remedied; and d. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be inequitable to refuse the request for termination.
The landlord alleges that the tenants breached the RTA by causing an unreasonable interference with the peace comfort and privacy of their neighbours 2 , and by using the premises or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose (drug use). 3
The landlord alleges that the tenants breached the terms of the tenancy agreement by having parties at the property and permitting guests to park at the property.
The landlord’s application refers to numerous complaints by neighbours and multiple police complaints about behaviour from the tenanted premises that includes: a. Loud domestic disputes. b. Threats to neighbours. c. Children left unsupervised in common areas. d. Frequent parties, and anti-social behaviour by guests including swearing, fights, and drug use.
Mr Agarbattiwala initially sought to submit video evidence, taken by neighbours, showing instances of the alleged behaviour. Mr Agarbattiwala asked that the video evidence not be shown to the tenants, because it could be possible to identify from where the recording was made. Mr Agarbattiwala said that the neighbours do not want to give evidence because they are frightened of these tenants. 1 Section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 40(2)(c) RTA 3 Section 40(2)(b) RTA
I explained to Mr Agarbattiwala that any evidence he submitted must be shown to the other party. This is a fundamental principle of natural justice.
Mr Agarbattiwala elected to not provide the video recordings. Instead, he provided a selection of photographs or stills from videos.
Visual evidence, such as photographs or video, and written statements or oral evidence from the affected neighbours is the most relevant evidence for claims alleging an unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of neighbours.
I discuss the photographic evidence below.
I was not provided with copies of police complaint acknowledgments.
The only direct evidence I have about anti-social behaviour from the tenants came from Ms Mumtaj Agarbattiwala. Ms Agarbattiwala said that early in the tenancy she assisted with a problem with the hot water cylinder. There was a brief delay in the plumber getting to the property to fix the problem. When she told Mr Wells about this, he was extremely angry and verbally abusive.
The photographs / stills show: a. An unknown male on the balcony with what appears to be a bong in his hands. Ms Emery is also on the balcony. b. Mr Wells standing outside the unit with a child in his arms, facing away from the camera. This is a still from a video recording. Mr Agarbattiwala says that Mr Wells was involved in a loud argument when the video was recorded, but of course it is not possible to tell that from the still image. c. Another image of a (different) unknown male on the balcony with what appears to be a bong in his hands. d. Two images of a social gathering / barbeque with several guests. e. An image of the tenants on the balcony facing towards the person taking the photograph / video. The tenants appear to be agitated, but of course from the still image it is not possible to know whether they were being hostile or threatening to the person taking the photograph / video.
The evidence provided: a. Does not prove any instances of unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of neighbours. b. Does not prove any instances of parties or loud noise after 9pm. The tenancy agreement does not prohibit parties entirely, only “partying after 9pm”. c. Does not prove any breach of the “No guest parking within the property” clause in the tenancy agreement. The photographs of the social gathering / barbeque show a white vehicle in the foreground, but I have no information about whose car that is. d. Does prove that the tenants permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose (possession of a pipe of other utensil for the purpose of the use of controlled drugs 4 ). There are two images of guests in possession of bongs, and in one of the photographs the person is standing next to Ms Emery. e. Does prove one incident of verbally aggressive behaviour by Mr Wells towards Ms Agarbattiwala.
The proven breaches are not capable of being remedied. Therefore, it was not necessary for the landlord to issue breach notices.
The next question is whether the nature and extent of the proven breaches is such that it would be inequitable to refuse the landlord’s request for termination.
My finding is that the nature and extent of the proven breaches do not justify termination in this instance.
There is no evidence of drug use by the tenants at the premises. The proven unlawful activity by two of the tenants’ guests, possession of a utensil used for cannabis use, is minor.
Ms Agarbattiwala’s evidence about Mr Wells’ response to the delay with the plumber is concerning, but I have not heard from Mr Wells about that incident, and it is not reasonable to terminate a tenancy on the basis of one frustrated outburst.
Therefore, the request for termination of the tenancy is not granted.
At the second hearing I asked Mr Agarbattiwala whether he had received any more complaints / concerns from neighbours since the first hearing in October. Mr Agarbattiwala said that he had not. This is encouraging. The landlord can bring a further application if matters deteriorate and they consider that there are grounds for termination.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 10 October 2025 sets out the background to this application.
The second hearing took place by video on 19 November 2025.
Per the previous order, notice of this hearing and a full copy of the landlord’s claim was sent to the tenants. Mr Raphael Agarbattiwala and Ms Mumtaj Agarbattiwala (representing the landlord) participated in the hearing.
The tenants did not link in to the video hearing. I attempted to phone the tenants on the two mobile numbers provided. I was unable to reach either tenant. I am satisfied that the tenants received notice of the hearing. They did not request an adjournment or indicate that they would be unavailable. The hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence. Discussion
The Tenancy Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy if: 1 a. The tenant has breached a term of the tenancy agreement or of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”); and b. If the breach is capable of being remedied, the landlord has given the tenant a notice describing the breach and giving the tenant a reasonable period of time (not less than 14-days) to remedy it; and c. The breach has not been remedied within the notice period, or the breach is not capable of being remedied; and d. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be inequitable to refuse the request for termination.
The landlord alleges that the tenants breached the RTA by causing an unreasonable interference with the peace comfort and privacy of their neighbours 2 , and by using the premises or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose (drug use). 3
The landlord alleges that the tenants breached the terms of the tenancy agreement by having parties at the property and permitting guests to park at the property.
The landlord’s application refers to numerous complaints by neighbours and multiple police complaints about behaviour from the tenanted premises that includes: a. Loud domestic disputes. b. Threats to neighbours. c. Children left unsupervised in common areas. d. Frequent parties, and anti-social behaviour by guests including swearing, fights, and drug use.
Mr Agarbattiwala initially sought to submit video evidence, taken by neighbours, showing instances of the alleged behaviour. Mr Agarbattiwala asked that the video evidence not be shown to the tenants, because it could be possible to identify from where the recording was made. Mr Agarbattiwala said that the neighbours do not want to give evidence because they are frightened of these tenants. 1 Section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 40(2)(c) RTA 3 Section 40(2)(b) RTA
I explained to Mr Agarbattiwala that any evidence he submitted must be shown to the other party. This is a fundamental principle of natural justice.
Mr Agarbattiwala elected to not provide the video recordings. Instead, he provided a selection of photographs or stills from videos.
Visual evidence, such as photographs or video, and written statements or oral evidence from the affected neighbours is the most relevant evidence for claims alleging an unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of neighbours.
I discuss the photographic evidence below.
I was not provided with copies of police complaint acknowledgments.
The only direct evidence I have about anti-social behaviour from the tenants came from Ms Mumtaj Agarbattiwala. Ms Agarbattiwala said that early in the tenancy she assisted with a problem with the hot water cylinder. There was a brief delay in the plumber getting to the property to fix the problem. When she told Mr Wells about this, he was extremely angry and verbally abusive.
The photographs / stills show: a. An unknown male on the balcony with what appears to be a bong in his hands. Ms Emery is also on the balcony. b. Mr Wells standing outside the unit with a child in his arms, facing away from the camera. This is a still from a video recording. Mr Agarbattiwala says that Mr Wells was involved in a loud argument when the video was recorded, but of course it is not possible to tell that from the still image. c. Another image of a (different) unknown male on the balcony with what appears to be a bong in his hands. d. Two images of a social gathering / barbeque with several guests. e. An image of the tenants on the balcony facing towards the person taking the photograph / video. The tenants appear to be agitated, but of course from the still image it is not possible to know whether they were being hostile or threatening to the person taking the photograph / video.
The evidence provided: a. Does not prove any instances of unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of neighbours. b. Does not prove any instances of parties or loud noise after 9pm. The tenancy agreement does not prohibit parties entirely, only “partying after 9pm”. c. Does not prove any breach of the “No guest parking within the property” clause in the tenancy agreement. The photographs of the social gathering / barbeque show a white vehicle in the foreground, but I have no information about whose car that is. d. Does prove that the tenants permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose (possession of a pipe of other utensil for the purpose of the use of controlled drugs 4 ). There are two images of guests in possession of bongs, and in one of the photographs the person is standing next to Ms Emery. e. Does prove one incident of verbally aggressive behaviour by Mr Wells towards Ms Agarbattiwala.
The proven breaches are not capable of being remedied. Therefore, it was not necessary for the landlord to issue breach notices.
The next question is whether the nature and extent of the proven breaches is such that it would be inequitable to refuse the landlord’s request for termination.
My finding is that the nature and extent of the proven breaches do not justify termination in this instance.
There is no evidence of drug use by the tenants at the premises. The proven unlawful activity by two of the tenants’ guests, possession of a utensil used for cannabis use, is minor.
Ms Agarbattiwala’s evidence about Mr Wells’ response to the delay with the plumber is concerning, but I have not heard from Mr Wells about that incident, and it is not reasonable to terminate a tenancy on the basis of one frustrated outburst.
Therefore, the request for termination of the tenancy is not granted.
At the second hearing I asked Mr Agarbattiwala whether he had received any more complaints / concerns from neighbours since the first hearing in October. Mr Agarbattiwala said that he had not. This is encouraging. The landlord can bring a further application if matters deteriorate and they consider that there are grounds for termination.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5349882 — Harassment at Unit E, 14 Sunlands Drive, Manurewa, Manukau 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5349882 — Harassment at Unit E, 14 Sunlands Drive, Manurewa, Manukau 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.