Rayner v Respondent RT2436 (Residential Tenancies)

In the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Rayner, as the lessor, sought an order to terminate the residential tenancy agreement held by the respondent, RT2436, on various grounds of alleged breaches. The applicant sought an order for the respondent to vacate the premises and for the tribunal to dismiss the respondent’s counterclaim for lost earnings due to the proceedings. The respondent admitted to some breaches but denied others. The tribunal was required to decide whether the respondent had breached the standard residential tenancy terms and the Residential Tenancy Act 1997, and if so, whether those breaches warranted termination of the tenancy agreement. Additionally, the tribunal had to determine the validity and merits of the respondent’s counterclaim for lost earnings.

The tribunal reviewed evidence from both parties regarding the alleged breaches of the tenancy agreement. The tribunal found that while no breach was established in relation to the payment of rent, the respondent did breach section 72(1) by subleasing part of the apartment without permission and section 71AE–AF by housing multiple cats without permission. The tribunal accepted the evidence that cats were present in the apartment prior to any request for permission and after permission had been refused. The tribunal was satisfied that the respondent misrepresented her circumstances in her tenancy application, knowing she would bring cats into the premises without permission. The tribunal also dismissed the respondent’s counterclaim, finding that no direct link was established between the applicant or the application process and the respondent’s claimed lost earnings.

The tribunal ordered the termination of the residential tenancy agreement, requiring the respondent to vacate the premises by a specified date. The tribunal found that the breaches were serious enough to warrant termination of the tenancy. The tribunal also dismissed the respondent’s counterclaim, finding insufficient evidence to support the claim of lost earnings due to the proceedings. The tribunal concluded that the applicant’s evidence demonstrated the respondent’s breaches, while the respondent failed to provide any evidence to support her counterclaim. The tribunal’s orders included a requirement for the respondent to vacate the premises by the specified date and dismissal of the counterclaim.