What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5374941?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.

How much money was awarded in case 5374941?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5374941?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5374941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13292893-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5374941?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.

How much money was awarded in case 5374941?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5374941?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5374941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13292893-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 MacLaren Road, Wigram, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5374941 — Boarding House

Order

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.
Roshan Sharma is added as a respondent to the application with the consent of the parties.
The application is to be set down to be heard on a date to be set.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Kapoor applied for compensation for breach by the landlords of his privacy in the use of the premises (quiet enjoyment).
Ms Jarupongpima and Mr Roshan disputed the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the application claiming that they and Mr Kapoor were flatmates. The application was therefore set down for a hearing on the issue of jurisdiction.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants (or between a landlord and a guarantor of a tenant's obligations) provided the dispute is in relation to a residential tenancy which comes within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and does not come within any of the exclusion in section 5 of the Act. Relevant here is section 5(1)(n) which states: “Where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”
As mentioned, Ms Jarupongpima and Mr Roshan claim that the legal relationship between her Mr Kapoor is that of flatmates, not landlord and tenant. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear disputes between flatmates.
The premises consist of a five bedroomed house. Ms Jarupongpima and Mr Roshan own and live in the property. They occupy one of the bedrooms and rent out the other four bedrooms to others. All have shared use of the common facilities. Mr Kapoor first began occupying the property on 25 October 2025. He moved out just over a month later, on 25 October 2025. There were four other occupants who occupied the other three bedrooms (and shared the common areas) while he was living there.
I accept that the premises are Ms Jarupongpima and Mr Roshan own the property and use the property as their principal place of residence. However, the question to be determined when considering the section 5(1)(n) exception is not whether the premises are owned by the landlords or are used by them as a principal place of residence, the question is whether the principal use of the premises is as a place of residence by the landlords: Musson v Dobrisek & Ors Lower Hutt CIV- 2006-032-36, 5 May 2006. I have no hesitation in answering this question in the negative. The evidence establishes that Mr Kapoor had the right to occupy a bedroom at the premises and the right to share the common areas equally with the other occupants including Ms Jarupongpima and Mr Roshan. The necessary conclusion is that Ms Jarupongpima and Mr Roshan’s use of the property was not the principal use, their use was at best equal with that of the other occupants.
The necessary conclusion is that the tenancy comes within the Act and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Mr Kapoor’s claim.
The parties will be notified in writing by Tenancy Services of the date and time of the next hearing. Further documents/evidence
Any further documents that either party may wish to rely on must be sent to the Tribunal and to the other party as soon as possible but no later than 5 days before the next hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5374941 — Boarding House at 24 MacLaren Road, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5374941 — Boarding House at 24 MacLaren Road, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions