What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5498048 about?

The tribunal order states: This matter is to be set down for 120 minute in person hearing before me on the

How much money was awarded in case 5498048?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5498048?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5498048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13644457-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5498048 about?

The tribunal order states: This matter is to be set down for 120 minute in person hearing before me on the

How much money was awarded in case 5498048?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5498048?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5498048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13644457-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

275 Linwood Road, Karaka, RD 1, Papakura 2580 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5498048 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The parties entered into a tenancy agreement using the standard Tenancy Services residential tenancy agreement template, commencing on 28 August 2025 as a periodic tenancy. The tenancy agreement included a note stating: “Once achieve resource consent [the parties] will move to a commercial lease.”

On 30 April 2026, the landlord applied to the Tribunal seeking termination of the tenancy on the basis of rent arrears.

On 5 May 2026, the tenant contacted the Tribunal disputing its jurisdiction, on the basis that the arrangement was said to be a commercial tenancy.

At the hearing, the tenant submitted that they had been pursuing resource consent and had engaged in discussions with the Council regarding compliance requirements for a proposed doggy daycare business. The tenant considered that those discussions were sufficient to satisfy the note in the tenancy agreement contemplating entry into a commercial lease once resource consent was achieved.

The parties agree, however, that resource consent has not in fact been obtained. Both parties accept that the tenant has independently taken steps toward achieving compliance with the Council’s requirements.

In any event, the evidence establishes that the property is a lifestyle property comprising substantial land area, together with a dwelling in which the tenant resides and various outbuildings. The primary purpose of the agreement, as presently constituted, is residential occupation. That is clear from both the form of the agreement and the manner in which the tenancy has operated.

In Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994, the District Court stated that, in order to give effect to the true intent and meaning of the Act, the exemptions contained in section 5 should be interpreted strictly rather than liberally.

In any event, even if there was contemplation by both parties that the property may in future be used for commercial purposes upon resource consent being obtained, that has not occurred and the present arrangement is not commercial in nature. The tenancy remains, in substance and form, a residential tenancy for the purposes of the Act.

I acknowledge the tenant’s submission that they have invested money into adapting the property for potential commercial use, and that both parties contemplated the possibility that a commercial lease may be entered into in the future if resource consent were obtained. However, at present, the tenant has not provided any evidence sufficient to displace the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine the landlord’s application.

The matter will therefore proceed to a substantive hearing. The hearing is to be allocated 120 minutes and heard in person.

The parties will be notified in due course by Tenancy Services of the date and time of the next hearing.

Order

This matter is to be set down for 120 minute in person hearing before me on the next available date.

DECLARATION

This is a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies.
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this claim.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties entered into a tenancy agreement using the standard Tenancy Services residential tenancy agreement template, commencing on 28 August 2025 as a periodic tenancy. The tenancy agreement included a note stating: “Once achieve resource consent [the parties] will move to a commercial lease.”
On 30 April 2026, the landlord applied to the Tribunal seeking termination of the tenancy on the basis of rent arrears.
On 5 May 2026, the tenant contacted the Tribunal disputing its jurisdiction, on the basis that the arrangement was said to be a commercial tenancy.
At the hearing, the tenant submitted that they had been pursuing resource consent and had engaged in discussions with the Council regarding compliance requirements for a proposed doggy daycare business. The tenant considered that those discussions were sufficient to satisfy the note in the tenancy agreement contemplating entry into a commercial lease once resource consent was achieved.
The parties agree, however, that resource consent has not in fact been obtained. Both parties accept that the tenant has independently taken steps toward achieving compliance with the Council’s requirements.
In any event, the evidence establishes that the property is a lifestyle property comprising substantial land area, together with a dwelling in which the tenant resides and various outbuildings. The primary purpose of the agreement, as presently constituted, is residential occupation. That is clear from both the form of the agreement and the manner in which the tenancy has operated.
In Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994, the District Court stated that, in order to give effect to the true intent and meaning of the Act, the exemptions contained in section 5 should be interpreted strictly rather than liberally.
In any event, even if there was contemplation by both parties that the property may in future be used for commercial purposes upon resource consent being obtained, that has not occurred and the present arrangement is not commercial in nature. The tenancy remains, in substance and form, a residential tenancy for the purposes of the Act.
I acknowledge the tenant’s submission that they have invested money into adapting the property for potential commercial use, and that both parties contemplated the possibility that a commercial lease may be entered into in the future if resource consent were obtained. However, at present, the tenant has not provided any evidence sufficient to displace the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine the landlord’s application.
The matter will therefore proceed to a substantive hearing. The hearing is to be allocated 120 minutes and heard in person.
The parties will be notified in due course by Tenancy Services of the date and time of the next hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5498048 — Rent arrears at 275 Linwood Road, Karaka, RD 1, Papakura 2580

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5498048 — Rent arrears at 275 Linwood Road, Karaka, RD 1, Papakura 2580

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

DECLARATION

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

DECLARATION

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions