Registered Owner Granted Immediate Possession of Property
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal granted the registered owner immediate possession of the property without a tenancy agreement, citing the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. This decision allows the owner to reclaim the property.
⚖️ Legal holding
A registered owner of a property is entitled to immediate possession of the premises under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows the Tenancy Tribunal to order someone to leave a property if they are living there without permission, like a squatter or trespasser. If the Tribunal is convinced that a person is entitled to the property and another person is there without a legal right, it must issue an order for possession to the rightful owner.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted possession to the registered owner of the property under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted possession to the registered owner of the property under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, despite the absence of a tenancy agreement. The registered owner had purchased the property following a sale initiated by the mortgagee.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5147251 1
[2025] NZTT 5147251
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - Timaru | Te Tihi-o-[COMPANY]: [COMPANY] owner
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [COMPANY] is granted possession of the premises at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] immediately today.
Reasons:
1. The directors of the [COMPANY] attended the hearing. The other party did not attend.
2. The [COMPANY] purchased the property on 17 January 2025 following a sale initiated by the mortgagee.
3. The record of title shows [COMPANY] as the registered owner.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5147251 2
4. [NAME], the former owner, has remained at the premises and is now a [NAME] in possession.
The law
5. Even though there is no tenancy agreement between the parties, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant possession to the registered owner of the property under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which provides:
65 Eviction of squatters
(1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a [NAME] or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the [COMPANY]. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises.
(3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
6. The [COMPANY] as the registered owner of the premises is entitled to immediate possession of these residential premises.
Result
7. The Tribunal grants the [COMPANY] immediate possession of the premises at [ADDRESS], Oamaru North, Oamaru today pursuant to section 65 RTA and section 138 of the District Courts Act 2016. The usual 48-hour delay before the order can be enforced does not therefore apply.
J Greene
11 February 2025
https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM36926 https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM36926
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5147251 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5147251 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 company is the registered owner of the property.
- There is no tenancy agreement between the parties.
- The former owner is currently in possession without legal rights.
- The Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The usual 48-hour delay before the order can be enforced does not apply.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The former owner did not attend the hearing.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision granted the registered owner immediate possession of the property.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the registered owner could obtain possession of the property without a formal tenancy agreement.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the registered owner, stating that they have the right to possess the property under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the registered owner had the legal right to possession under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the registered owner.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, this means that a registered owner can seek possession of a property through the Tenancy Tribunal, even without a formal tenancy agreement.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.