What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422169 about?

The tribunal order states: Sarthak Kathuria and Lovepreet Singh must pay Street Smart Property

How much money was awarded in case 5422169?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,748.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $417.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422169?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13185208-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422169 about?

The tribunal order states: Sarthak Kathuria and Lovepreet Singh must pay Street Smart Property

How much money was awarded in case 5422169?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,748.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $417.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422169?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13185208-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Rebecca Rise, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5422169 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422169. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25.02.2026	$1,748.57	Rent arrears to 25.02.2026
Water rates to 12.2.2026	$417.63	Water rates to 12.2.2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Mr Chen, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenants did not call into the hearing conference as per the instructions in the Notice of hearing, nor did they answer a call to their phones. As the tenants were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, outgoings and refund of the filing fee.

The landlord said they would prefer a conditional termination order. Burden of proof and evidence

The party making a claim must prove their claim on a balance of probabilities, i.e. that it is more likely than not that something occurred.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much rent and water rates are owing?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 25 February 2026, which is $1,748.57.

The landlord provided water invoices and a water ledger that showed the tenants owe $417.63 in water rates up to 12 February 2026. Termination of the tenancy claim

The rent arrears is not 21 days in arrears, either on the date the landlord’s application was filed or on the hearing date.

The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant both dated 5 January 2026 for failing to pay rent as required, and for not paying water rates, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

The landlord only provided one 14-day notice issued to the tenant, which was dated 5 January 2026 for non-payment of rent and a further 14-day notice issued to the tenant also on 5 January 2026 for non-payment of water rates by the tenant. There were no further 14-day breach notices provided by the landlord.

Whilst the landlord alleged the tenant failed to keep the property clean and tidy, there was no 14-day notice provided by the landlord for this.

I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to show it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, given one set of 14-day notices for rent and water issued on the same day, with no further 14-day notices provided.

As such, if the landlord cannot prove the termination of the tenancy claim, then a conditional termination order cannot be made either. Therefore, the termination of the tenancy claim is dismissed. Filing fee

Because Street Smart Property Management Limited As Agent For Hong Phat Truong has been partly successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422169. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25.02.2026	$1,748.57	Rent arrears to 25.02.2026
Water rates to 12.2.2026	$417.63	Water rates to 12.2.2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Sarthak Kathuria and Lovepreet Singh must pay Street Smart Property Management Limited As Agent For Hong Phat Truong $2,194.20 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Chen, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenants did not call into the hearing conference as per the instructions in the Notice of hearing, nor did they answer a call to their phones. As the tenants were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, outgoings and refund of the filing fee.
The landlord said they would prefer a conditional termination order. Burden of proof and evidence
The party making a claim must prove their claim on a balance of probabilities, i.e. that it is more likely than not that something occurred.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much rent and water rates are owing?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 25 February 2026, which is $1,748.57.
The landlord provided water invoices and a water ledger that showed the tenants owe $417.63 in water rates up to 12 February 2026. Termination of the tenancy claim
The rent arrears is not 21 days in arrears, either on the date the landlord’s application was filed or on the hearing date.
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant both dated 5 January 2026 for failing to pay rent as required, and for not paying water rates, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The landlord only provided one 14-day notice issued to the tenant, which was dated 5 January 2026 for non-payment of rent and a further 14-day notice issued to the tenant also on 5 January 2026 for non-payment of water rates by the tenant. There were no further 14-day breach notices provided by the landlord.
Whilst the landlord alleged the tenant failed to keep the property clean and tidy, there was no 14-day notice provided by the landlord for this.
I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to show it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, given one set of 14-day notices for rent and water issued on the same day, with no further 14-day notices provided.
As such, if the landlord cannot prove the termination of the tenancy claim, then a conditional termination order cannot be made either. Therefore, the termination of the tenancy claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Street Smart Property Management Limited As Agent For Hong Phat Truong has been partly successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422169 — Rent arrears at 21 Rebecca Rise, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422169 — Rent arrears at 21 Rebecca Rise, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much rent and water rates are owing?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much rent and water rates are owing?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions