Tenant granted possession order over unlawful occupier
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal granted the claimant possession of the premises, ruling the respondent was unlawfully occupying the space without lawful authority.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to possession of residential premises if they are in possession as a squatter or trespasser without lawful authority.
📖 What the law says
This rule says that if someone who has a right to residential premises asks the Tenancy Tribunal for help, and the Tribunal agrees that another person is living there without permission (as a squatter or trespasser), then the Tribunal must order that the premises be returned to the person who has the right to them. This rule does not stop other laws or ways of getting the premises back from being used.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal granted possession of the premises to the claimant under s65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal granted possession of the premises to the claimant under s65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, ruling the respondent was in possession unlawfully.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5196153 1
[2025] NZTT 5196153
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT WELLINGTON | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Applicant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Respondent
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [COMPANY] is granted possession of the premises at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] at 5pm on Sunday 27 April 2025.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the telephone hearing with [NAME], the director of the applicant company and his son [NAME] representing the applicant company.
2. The applicant has applied for possession of the premises pursuant to section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
3. Section 65 RTA provides:
(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 squatter 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 applicant………
(3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5196153 2
4. The applicant has applied for a possession order under s65(1) on the basis that:
a. The premises are residential premises;
b. The applicant is entitled to possession of the premises as lessee pursuant to an Agreement As To Lease End Works. The agreement records that the lease of the property at [ADDRESS] (which includes the premises at [ADDRESS] and other units known as 7A, B and C [ADDRESS]) has been renewed for a further 21-year term from 30 November 2021;
c. The respondent, [NAME], is in possession of the premises other than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by the applicant.
Background facts
5. The applicant explained the history of [NAME] residing at first 7A and then [ADDRESS]. She was associated with a former commercial sub-tenant of Unit 7A and unbeknown to the applicant their sub-tenant at the time had allowed [NAME] to reside at Unit 7A. When the commercial sub-tenant was evicted in or about July 2020, [NAME] remained in occupation of Unit 7A.
6. For humanitarian reasons, [NAME] gave [NAME] verbal permission to stay at Unit 7A temporarily to give her time to find alternative accommodation. No rent was requested or paid. This was intended to be a short-term arrangement. However, the arrangement continued for another 2 years.
7. In August 2022, [NAME] wrote to [NAME] requesting that she vacate the premises as the applicant wished to sublet the premises to another company. Before the lease could start, the applicant needed to tidy up and renovate Unit 7A. [NAME] refused to leave, and a trespass notice was issued. However, she still refused to leave.
8. In January 2023, [NAME] offered [NAME] 7D to store her possessions only on a temporary basis. He advised her that she was not to reside at Unit 7D. [NAME] agreed to leave 7A on that basis. However, in breach of the agreement, she began living at Unit 7D.
9. In August 2023, after being repeatedly asked to leave Unit 7D and remove her dogs and possessions, a new trespass notice was served. [NAME] left but did not remove her possessions.
10. In March 2024, [NAME] contacted [NAME] seeking permission to retrieve her belongings from Unit 7D. He agreed that she could do so, but expressly told her that she was not to bring her dogs onto the property and she was not to remain on the property other than for the purpose of removing her
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5196153 3
belongings. [NAME] agreed to those conditions and access was allowed. However, she breached the agreement and again took up residence in Unit 7D with her dogs.
11. The applicant made further repeated requests for [NAME] to leave and issued another trespass notice dated 6 December 2024, served on [NAME] personally by [NAME] on 9 December 2024. [NAME] has not vacated the premises resulting in the present application to the Tribunal.
12. The parties accept that there is no residential tenancy agreement in place between the parties; [NAME] does not and has never paid rent in exchange for a right to occupy the premises; and she acknowledged during the hearing that Mr [NAME] had told her that she could stay/use the premises temporarily.
Discussion and findings
13. Notwithstanding the absence of a residential tenancy agreement between the parties, s65(3) makes clear that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant a possession order in favour of the applicant provided that the requirements of s65(1) are met.
14. Section 65(1) confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal in relation to “residential premises”. The applicant noted that these premises are commercial and while occupation by workers might be permissible, the applicant understands from the leaseholder that residential use is not permitted.
15. However, I accept that the definition of “residential premises” in section 2 RTA is broad and would cover the premises in this case. Section 2 says:
“residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful”
16. [NAME] is using the premises as a place of residence, albeit the occupation for residential purposes may be unlawful.
17. I am satisfied that the applicant as the legal lessee of the premises is prima facie entitled to possession of the premises. To defend the applicant’s right to a possession order under s65(1), the onus shifts to the respondent, [NAME], to satisfy the Tribunal that she is in possession of the premises pursuant to a right of occupation granted by the applicant.
18. As director of the applicant company, [NAME] has previously granted [NAME] a licence to occupy Unit 7A and a licence to use Unit 7D for storage purposes only. Any licence has since been revoked by service of the trespass notice served on [NAME] on 9 December 2024.
19. [NAME] was unable to establish any right of occupation granted by the applicant other than a temporary licence which has now been revoked.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5196153 4
20. I am satisfied that the prerequisites under s65 RTA have been met. Therefore, the granting of a possession order in favour of the applicant is mandatory.
21. As to the timing of the possession order, it is acknowledged that [NAME] will need some time to pack her belongings and vacate. Therefore, I give her until 5pm on Sunday 27 April 2025 to vacate the premises under s65 RTA.
[NAME]
16 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5196153 5
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5196153 6
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 premises are used as residential space by the respondent, fitting the definition of "residential premises" under the Act.
- There is no valid tenancy agreement in place between the applicant and the respondent for the premises.
- The respondent has been residing in the property without a lawful right to occupy it after multiple revocations of temporary licences.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The respondent claimed she had permission to stay temporarily but breached agreements repeatedly by continuing residence beyond allowed periods.
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 claimant possession of the premises at a specific date.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the unlawful occupation of residential premises by the respondent.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the claimant because the respondent was occupying the premises unlawfully without lawful authority.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 65, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant argued that the respondent was occupying the premises unlawfully without lawful authority, thus entitling the claimant to possession.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be entitled to possession of their premises if the occupier is unlawfully occupying the space.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included the history of the respondent's occupation and the issuance of trespass notices.