What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371783 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction in this Tribunal.

How much money was awarded in case 5371783?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371783?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371783?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13001706-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371783 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction in this Tribunal.

How much money was awarded in case 5371783?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371783?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371783?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13001706-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

350 Dunns Crossing Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371783 — Boarding House

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by Microsoft Teams.

The applicant and his wife and daughter moved into premises owned by the respondent and her husband on 24 May 2025 and moved out on 15 October 2025.

The applicant is seeking refund of bond plus overpaid rent of three days and compensation for damaged goods following vacating the premises on 15 October 2025.

The matter has been set down today at the direction of the Duty Adjudicator to determine whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this claim.

The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant and relates to any tenancy to which this the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies. See section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The applicant produced an agreement headed “Flat/house – sharing agreement”. The agreement recorded “Kanchan” as Head Tenant and “Shaik Ataur Rehman” as Flatmate. It was signed by both parties and dated 1 August 2025. The agreement set out terms of the arrangement including payment of bond, rent and recorded that the expenses were to be shared. The agreement recorded that in the event of any dispute it will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.

It is noted that this agreement was signed approximately six weeks after Mr Shaik and his wife and daughter moved to live in the premises. Mr Shaik stated that he drafted the agreement based off a previous agreement he had used as he wished to have proof of the arrangement.

In determining whether the parties were in a landlord/tenant relationship there is a need to look at the nature of the relationship between the parties.

This is a four-bedroom home. The owners Mrs Sardana and her husband live in the home with their son and occupy two of the bedrooms. There is another occupant who Mr Shaik referred to as a “flatmate” in one bedroom and the applicant and his wife and child lived in another bedroom.

The kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas are shared by the household. The applicant stated that the owners primarily used the living room area as theirs. The respondent stated that the applicant’s child would play with her child in the living area.

The house was fully furnished by the owners, but Mr Shaik and his family provided their own kitchen utensils and dishes.

The rent was paid to the owners together with a contribution towards utilities.

Having considered the evidence of both parties in this case including the wording of the signed agreement I find on the balance of probabilities that the nature of the relationship between the parties was that Mr Shaik and his family were boarding with the owners.

The arrangement does not meet the definition of a boarding house arrangement as there is no evidence that there were 6 or more tenants in the premises or that there was any intention of this. See section 66B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Therefore, I find that the parties were not in a landlord/tenant relationship.

In the alternative even if there is a landlord tenant relationship between the parties, and Mr Shaik is considered to be a tenant; the tenancy is excluded by section 5(1)(n) of the Act as the premises have continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the owners.

Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.

The parties may wish to pursue this matter by filing a claim in the Disputes Tribunal.

Order

The application is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction in this Tribunal.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by Microsoft Teams.
The applicant and his wife and daughter moved into premises owned by the respondent and her husband on 24 May 2025 and moved out on 15 October 2025.
The applicant is seeking refund of bond plus overpaid rent of three days and compensation for damaged goods following vacating the premises on 15 October 2025.
The matter has been set down today at the direction of the Duty Adjudicator to determine whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this claim.
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant and relates to any tenancy to which this the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies. See section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The applicant produced an agreement headed “Flat/house – sharing agreement”. The agreement recorded “Kanchan” as Head Tenant and “Shaik Ataur Rehman” as Flatmate. It was signed by both parties and dated 1 August 2025. The agreement set out terms of the arrangement including payment of bond, rent and recorded that the expenses were to be shared. The agreement recorded that in the event of any dispute it will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
It is noted that this agreement was signed approximately six weeks after Mr Shaik and his wife and daughter moved to live in the premises. Mr Shaik stated that he drafted the agreement based off a previous agreement he had used as he wished to have proof of the arrangement.
In determining whether the parties were in a landlord/tenant relationship there is a need to look at the nature of the relationship between the parties.
This is a four-bedroom home. The owners Mrs Sardana and her husband live in the home with their son and occupy two of the bedrooms. There is another occupant who Mr Shaik referred to as a “flatmate” in one bedroom and the applicant and his wife and child lived in another bedroom.
The kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas are shared by the household. The applicant stated that the owners primarily used the living room area as theirs. The respondent stated that the applicant’s child would play with her child in the living area.
The house was fully furnished by the owners, but Mr Shaik and his family provided their own kitchen utensils and dishes.
The rent was paid to the owners together with a contribution towards utilities.
Having considered the evidence of both parties in this case including the wording of the signed agreement I find on the balance of probabilities that the nature of the relationship between the parties was that Mr Shaik and his family were boarding with the owners.
The arrangement does not meet the definition of a boarding house arrangement as there is no evidence that there were 6 or more tenants in the premises or that there was any intention of this. See section 66B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Therefore, I find that the parties were not in a landlord/tenant relationship.
In the alternative even if there is a landlord tenant relationship between the parties, and Mr Shaik is considered to be a tenant; the tenancy is excluded by section 5(1)(n) of the Act as the premises have continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the owners.
Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.
The parties may wish to pursue this matter by filing a claim in the Disputes Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371783 — Boarding House at 350 Dunns Crossing Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371783 — Boarding House at 350 Dunns Crossing Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

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