Landlord Granted Possession After Valid Termination Notice
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal granted the landlord possession of the rented property after the landlord provided a valid termination notice. The notice was given 63 days prior to the intended termination date, and the tenant did not respond to the notice or attend the hearing.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord can terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days’ notice if the owner of the premises requires the premises within 90 days after the notice is given, as the principal place of residence for a member of the family.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a landlord must give at least 42 days' notice to end a tenancy if they need the property for themselves or a family member to live in.
This rule says that if a tenancy has ended, the Tenancy Tribunal must order that the person who is entitled to the property gets possession of it. However, this order cannot be made more than 3 months after the tenancy ended.
This rule allows the Tenancy Tribunal to make various orders, including an order for one party to give possession of the property to another party.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal granted possession of the premises to the landlord following the termination of the tenancy.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal granted possession of the premises to the landlord following the termination of the tenancy. The landlord provided a valid termination notice under section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the tenant did not respond to the notice or attend the hearing.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5159955 1
[2025] NZTT 5159955
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]
ORDER
1. An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
2. [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend and did not respond when telephoned on the number ending in 724.
2. The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
3. On 8 December 2024 the landlord gave the tenant 63 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis that the property was required for her granddaughter to reside in. The notice advised that the tenancy would end on 9 February 2025.
4. Section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a landlord can terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days’ notice, if the owner of the premises requires the premises within 90 days after the notice is given, as the principal place of residence (for at least 90 days) for a member of the [NAME].
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5159955 2
5. Valid notice was given, and the requirements of section 51(1)(a) have been met.
6. Accordingly, I find that the tenancy ended on 9 February 2025 which is less than 90 days ago. Section 64 of the RTA confirms that the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to any person entitled to possession of the premises following termination of the tenancy.
7. Section 78(1)(b) of the RTA confirms that the Tribunal may make an order that the tenant yield possession of the premises to the landlord.
8. I am satisfied that the tenancy has ended, and I can see no reason why the landlord’s application for a possession order should not be granted, with immediate effect.
[NAME] 25 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5159955 3
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5159955 4
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord gave the tenant 63 days' notice to terminate the tenancy.
- The landlord stated that the property was needed for her granddaughter to live in.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing and did not respond to calls.
- The tenancy ended on 9 February 2025, which is less than 90 days ago.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal granted the landlord possession of the rented property.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord could terminate the tenancy and obtain possession of the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the landlord because the termination notice met all the requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 51(1)(a), 64, and 78(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord had provided a valid termination notice under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, providing a valid termination notice under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 can lead to obtaining possession of the property.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The termination notice provided by the landlord was the key document in this case.