What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362433 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 49 Turner Drive, Western

How much money was awarded in case 5362433?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,501.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362433?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362433?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12886031-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362433 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 49 Turner Drive, Western

How much money was awarded in case 5362433?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,501.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362433?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362433?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12886031-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

49 Turner Drive, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5362433 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362433 — net $7,089.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 December 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss	$8,501.91	Rent arrears to 17 December 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,089.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,089.91

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 49 Turner Drive, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015 is terminated, and possession is granted to Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Sanjay Wadhwa And [The tenant/s] landlord/s], immediately.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Sanjay Wadhwa And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $7,089.91 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 (5354175-006) to Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Sanjay Wadhwa And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 December 2025.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord filed their application on 9 October 2025. Rent arrears were $9,197.84 (163 days) on this date. Because rent was more than 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the tenancy is terminated.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The law

Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a tenant to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. Where a tenant fails to pay rent, section 49 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit their loss.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court discussed a landlord’s duty to mitigate their loss in the context of rent arrears and held: [8] ...[W]here the tenant fails to pay rent owing, there is an obligation on the landlord to mitigate the loss. This can be achieved by not allowing the arrears to continue to accrue, instead ending the tenancy and reletting the premises thereby preventing ongoing loss. ... [11] Of relevance is s 55(1)(a) of the Act, which contains the power for a landlord to end a tenancy where rent is more than 21 days in arrears...
The District Court held that the test of what is required by a landlord to mitigate their loss is a factual one that requires the Court or Tribunal to consider: (a) whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and (b) more particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The case of Huang v Ashworth involved a tenancy that began in 2019 and ended on 3 January 2023. Throughout a significant period of the tenancy, the tenant did not pay the full amount of rent and was in arrears. As of March 2022, the tenant was 13 weeks in arrears. Rent arrears continued to increase until the tenancy ended on 3 January 2023. The landlord sought an order for $10,000.00 in rent arrears.
The landlord in Huang v Ashworth had engaged in ongoing discussion with the tenant about payment of the arrears. At different times, arrangements were put in place for the tenant to pay the arrears, but the tenant did not adhere for any significant period of time. The tenant made numerous promises to the landlord to pay the arrears and would sometimes “top up” their rental payment to reduce the arrears, but never for a sustained period of time. The landlord continued to allow the tenant more time to pay the arrears, rather than seeking eviction. The District Court found the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, but only up to a point. At paragraph [18], the District Court held: [18]... Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point where it is being naïve or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay. For that reason, I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed. In other words I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that there was some failure to mitigate loss...”
The District Court considered a reduction of one third of the total rent arrears claimed to be a reasonable reflection of the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. Analysis
The landlord has tried to manage the issue of rent arrears themselves for a long time. They have engaged in multiple discussions with the tenant, who has promised to pay the arrears, but never does. They have written letters to Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) to try to support the tenant in seeking assistance to clear the arrears, but these efforts have not been successful either.
The landlord has sent the tenant 14-day notices, but these relate to the need to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and do not mention rent arrears. The landlord has not filed any previous applications in the Tribunal, including an application for rent arrears.
The tenant has made two payments of rent between 22 April 2025 and 17 December 2025. No payments towards the arrears have been made. By the time the landlord filed their application for termination with the Tribunal, rent arrears were $9,197.84 (163 days).
I find it was reasonable for the landlord to try to deal with the issue of rent arrears themselves, but only up to a certain point. By 2 June 2025, rent arrears were $2,765.00 (49 days) and the tenant had not paid rent for six weeks. It should have been obvious to the landlord at this point, that the tenant was unlikely to pay their rent and arrears moving forward and an application for termination of the tenancy should have been filed with the Tribunal. By waiting until 9 October 2025 to do this, I find the landlord failed to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. The rent arrears must be reduced to reflect this.
The facts of this case are similar to Huang v Ashworth. Therefore, I adopt the same reduction of one-third that was applied in Huang v Ashworth to the present case. One third of $12,752.86 is $4,250.95.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $8,501.91. Filing fee
Because Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Sanjay Wadhwa And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362433 — net $7,089.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 December 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss	$8,501.91	Rent arrears to 17 December 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,089.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,089.91

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 49 Turner Drive, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015 is terminated, and possession is granted to Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Sanjay Wadhwa And [The tenant/s] landlord/s], immediately.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Sanjay Wadhwa And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $7,089.91 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 (5354175-006) to Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Sanjay Wadhwa And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 December 2025.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord filed their application on 9 October 2025. Rent arrears were $9,197.84 (163 days) on this date. Because rent was more than 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the tenancy is terminated.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The law

Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a tenant to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. Where a tenant fails to pay rent, section 49 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit their loss.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court discussed a landlord’s duty to mitigate their loss in the context of rent arrears and held: [8] ...[W]here the tenant fails to pay rent owing, there is an obligation on the landlord to mitigate the loss. This can be achieved by not allowing the arrears to continue to accrue, instead ending the tenancy and reletting the premises thereby preventing ongoing loss. ... [11] Of relevance is s 55(1)(a) of the Act, which contains the power for a landlord to end a tenancy where rent is more than 21 days in arrears...
The District Court held that the test of what is required by a landlord to mitigate their loss is a factual one that requires the Court or Tribunal to consider: (a) whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and (b) more particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The case of Huang v Ashworth involved a tenancy that began in 2019 and ended on 3 January 2023. Throughout a significant period of the tenancy, the tenant did not pay the full amount of rent and was in arrears. As of March 2022, the tenant was 13 weeks in arrears. Rent arrears continued to increase until the tenancy ended on 3 January 2023. The landlord sought an order for $10,000.00 in rent arrears.
The landlord in Huang v Ashworth had engaged in ongoing discussion with the tenant about payment of the arrears. At different times, arrangements were put in place for the tenant to pay the arrears, but the tenant did not adhere for any significant period of time. The tenant made numerous promises to the landlord to pay the arrears and would sometimes “top up” their rental payment to reduce the arrears, but never for a sustained period of time. The landlord continued to allow the tenant more time to pay the arrears, rather than seeking eviction. The District Court found the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, but only up to a point. At paragraph [18], the District Court held: [18]... Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point where it is being naïve or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay. For that reason, I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed. In other words I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that there was some failure to mitigate loss...”
The District Court considered a reduction of one third of the total rent arrears claimed to be a reasonable reflection of the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. Analysis
The landlord has tried to manage the issue of rent arrears themselves for a long time. They have engaged in multiple discussions with the tenant, who has promised to pay the arrears, but never does. They have written letters to Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) to try to support the tenant in seeking assistance to clear the arrears, but these efforts have not been successful either.
The landlord has sent the tenant 14-day notices, but these relate to the need to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and do not mention rent arrears. The landlord has not filed any previous applications in the Tribunal, including an application for rent arrears.
The tenant has made two payments of rent between 22 April 2025 and 17 December 2025. No payments towards the arrears have been made. By the time the landlord filed their application for termination with the Tribunal, rent arrears were $9,197.84 (163 days).
I find it was reasonable for the landlord to try to deal with the issue of rent arrears themselves, but only up to a certain point. By 2 June 2025, rent arrears were $2,765.00 (49 days) and the tenant had not paid rent for six weeks. It should have been obvious to the landlord at this point, that the tenant was unlikely to pay their rent and arrears moving forward and an application for termination of the tenancy should have been filed with the Tribunal. By waiting until 9 October 2025 to do this, I find the landlord failed to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. The rent arrears must be reduced to reflect this.
The facts of this case are similar to Huang v Ashworth. Therefore, I adopt the same reduction of one-third that was applied in Huang v Ashworth to the present case. One third of $12,752.86 is $4,250.95.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $8,501.91. Filing fee
Because Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Sanjay Wadhwa And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362433 — Rent arrears at 49 Turner Drive, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362433 — Rent arrears at 49 Turner Drive, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.