Sidhu v Sidhu

[2025] NSWCATCD 62

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Sidhu v Sidhu [2025] NSWCATCD 62

Hearing dates:

8 May 2025

Date of orders:

30 June 2025

Decision date:

30 June 2025

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

Senior Member K Ross

Decision:

(1)   The claims by Paramjit Sidhu 2024/00427584 and 2025/00006825 are dismissed.

(2)   On file 2025/00022027, Paramjit Sidhu is to pay Major Sidhu the sum of $25,000.00 immediately.

        Details of money order

        Rent from 1 October 2024 to 28 February 2025 $25,000.00

(3)   On file 2024/00446907, Paramjit Sidhu is to pay Tijen Sidhu the sum of $28,353.27 immediately.

        Details of money order

        Rent from 1 October 2024 to 28 February 2025 with $3000 in hand $15,335.00

        Balance legal fees on lease $378.92

        Interest on late rent payments to 1 October 2024 $539.35

        Electrical works $1100.00

        Removal of rubbish and slash property $11,000.00

(4)   Paramjit Sidhu is also to pay interest on the rent owing at order 3, and for that purpose Tijen Sidhu is by 14 June 2025 to submit to the Tribunal a calculation of the interest claimed to the date of these orders.

Catchwords:

LEASES: Agricultural leases, claims for rent to the end of the term where no evidence of mitigation of loss,

Legislation Cited:

Agricultural Tenancies Act 1990

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Major Sidhu (lessor)

Tijen Sidhu (lessor)

Paramjit Sidhu (lessee)

File Number(s):

2024/00427584 Paramjit Sidhu v Major Sidhu

2024/00446907 Tijen Sidhu v Paramjit Sidhu

2025/0006825 Paramjit Sidhu v Major Sidhu

2025/00022027 Major Sidhu v Paramjit Sidhu

Publication restriction:

unrestricted

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applications

1. Without intending any disrespect, in these reasons for decision I will refer to the participants by their first names.

2. There are four applications before the Tribunal:

• 2024/00427584 Paramjit Sidhu v Major Sidhu

• 2024/00446907 Tijen Sidhu v Paramjit Sidhu

• 2025/0006825 Paramjit Sidhu v Major Sidhu

• 2025/00022027 Major Sidhu v Paramjit Sidhu

3. The claims arise out of agricultural tenancy agreements in respect of two farming properties, one owned by Major Sidhu (Major) and one owned by Tijen Sidhu (Tijen). Both properties were leased to Paramjit Sidhu (Paramjit). The lease of Major’s property commenced on 1 March 2022 for a term of 5 years. The lease of Tijen’s property commenced on 1 July 2022 for a term of 5 years.

4. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claims under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1990 (The ATA).

5. Major was represented at the hearing by his son Danny Sidhu (Danny) and appeared by phone. Tijen and Paramjit also appeared by phone.

6. The parties had each lodged the documents on which they relied at the hearing. However, there are major shortcomings in the evidence, an issue which will be dealt with below.

7. I will deal with the claims in respect of each tenancy separately, but I note that the evidence lodged in all four proceedings was read as evidence in all other proceedings.

The termination orders

8. On 11 December 2024 the Tribunal made termination orders by consent in relation to both farms. The lessee was to give vacant possession on or before 8 January 2025. The order in respect of Tijen’s property provided for the lessee to remove two greenhouses and the banana plants he had planted, and allowed the removal of underground power infrastructure, with the work to be carried out by a qualified electrician. The order required the lessee to make good any damage caused by the removal of the items referred to. In respect of Major’s property, Paramjit was entitled to remove two grow boxes and any banana plants and was to make good any damage suffered.

9. The lessors obtained possession of both farms on 28 February 2025.

Major Sidhu’s property – the competing claims

10. The lessor claims $120,000.00 for rent from 1 October 2024 to the end of the tenancy, and $438,628.00 as compensation to replace infrastructure removed by the lessee.

11. The lessee opposes the orders sought and claims $130,000 for loss of income from bananas and blueberries.

Paramjit’s claim that he was denied quiet enjoyment of the farm

12. Paramjit claims that he was denied quiet enjoyment of the farm. He says that Major constantly came onto it, parked vehicles which he refused to remove, and removed a pump. He said that he could not enjoy his farming in these circumstances.

13. Danny, representing Major, has pointed out a number of inconsistencies in statutory declarations lodged by Paramjit in support of his claim. I accept those submissions. I place no weight on the statements provided by Paramjit. The deponents were not available for cross examination, and the issues raised by Danny (for example, that the deponent was not in the country at the time the declaration is said to have been made) cast doubt on the authenticity of the statements.

14. Paramjit has the onus of proving the allegations which he makes. His evidence is non-specific as to when the alleged breaches occurred. He did not issue any breach notices during the term of the lease, depriving Major of any opportunity to remedy the alleged breaches. He did not issue a termination notice for any such alleged breaches.

15. I cannot be satisfied that Paramjit has proven any breach of his quiet enjoyment such as to justify termination of the lease agreement.

16. I also dismiss Paramjit’s claim for compensation for economic loss, being the profits which he claims he could have made. The lease was terminated following the lessee’s own breach, so there is no basis for this claim.

Major’s claim for rent arrears and loss of rent

17. Clause 10 (a) of the lease provides that “if the lessee fails to comply with any of the essential terms of the lease, to pay rent or other money payable by the to the lessor within 14 days of the due date for payment of such money ….and such default is continued for the space of 14 days after written notice by the lessor to the lessee” then “the lessor may re-enter, and thereby determine the estate of the lessee”. The lessor gave notice to the lessee on 17 November 2024. On 18 November the lessee commenced proceedings 2024/00427584 in the Tribunal. The lessor did not re-enter pursuant to the notice. On 11 December 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy by consent.

18. Clause 10 (a) provides that the lessor is to re-let the premises as soon as possible after determination of the lease at the best rent obtainable. The lessor may recover “all arrears of rent, all loss of rental incurred as a result of the determination of the lease, all costs and expenses associated with the removal of the lessee’s fixtures, fittings and goods and the restoration of the demised property to a rentable condition, fair wear and tear and damage caused by fire, flood, storm and tempest excepted”.

19. The lessor does not provide a rent ledger. Danny gave evidence on affirmation that rent was unpaid for the months of October and November 2024 and is owing for the balance of the term of the lease. On the Tribunal’s calculation, the rent payable from 1/10/24 to 28/2/25 is $25,000 (annual rent of $60,000 is a calendar rent of $5000 per month).

20. Paramjit did not dispute that rent had not been paid from October 2024 but said that he had an arrangement with Major to offset the cost of growbags and coco beans which Major had bought from him, against the rent owing for October and November 2024. Danny disputed that any such arrangement had been made.

21. The arrangement alleged by Paramjit is inconsistent with the invoice issued by Major on 7 November 2024 and the email dated 17 November 2024. It is also inconsistent with Paramjit’s text message (undated) asking for leniency until 2 December 2024. There is no mention in that text message of any agreement to offset monies allegedly owing by Major against the rent claimed.

22. Whilst there is no evidence before the Tribunal from Major in the form of a statement, statutory declaration or affidavit, and Major did not attend the hearing, I do not accept Paramjit’s evidence, which is inconsistent with the evidence referred to above.

23. I am satisfied that rent is payable by the lessee to the date of vacant possession and I will order accordingly.

The claim for rent to the end of the term

24. The rent payable for the period 1/3/25 to 28/2/26 would have been $63,000.00. The rent payable from 1/3/26 to 28/2/27 would have been $66,150.00. The claim made is for $120,000.00, an amount less than the total of these rent calculations.

25. In respect of this part of the claim, the lessor had an obligation to relet the premises as soon as possible at the best rent payable [clause 10 (a)]. There are a number of difficulties in respect of this part of the claim. Danny gave evidence that the farm could not be relet because it is no longer an operational blueberry farm. He provided statutory declarations of neighbours attesting to the fact that blueberries and blueberry infrastructure have been removed since the tenancy commenced, a fact which is not disputed by the lessee. However, there is no evidence (other than the claim by Danny on behalf of Major) which addresses the issue as to whether the property could have been let for some other purpose, including no evidence addressing any attempts made to relet it (for example, advertisements or statements from letting agents or details of any attempts made).

26. In addition, the points of defence state that the proposition that Major gave consent to the removal of the plants and infrastructure is disputed, but Major provided no statement or affidavit to this effect and did not attend the hearing. Danny said that he and Major had compiled the Points of defence together. Points of defence set out what will be claimed, but the points of defence themselves are not evidence. I can place no weight on the statements in the points of defence.

27. In addition, the evidence of the condition of the farm at the commencement of the tenancy is inadequate. It consists of google maps photographs, and a photograph showing blueberry plants in one area, to be compared with a photo showing no blueberry plants. There is no condition report, no comprehensive set of ingoing photographs, and no evidence of the age of the improvements or their condition.

28. In these circumstances, I can make no finding that the premises cannot be let because of any breach of the agreement by the lessee.

29. It follows that I cannot be satisfied that the lessor is entitled to rent to the end of the term and I disallow this claim.

Major’s compensation claim

30. Danny on behalf of Major submitted that at the commencement of the lease there was infrastructure on the farm in the form of weed matting, irrigation, and blueberry netting on copper log supports. At the end of the tenancy, this infrastructure had been removed by Paramjit. Danny submitted that this left Major with a farm which cannot be used. Major claims $438,628 in compensation. He has not included the replacement cost of the blueberry plants which had been removed or allowed to die.

31. Paramjit did not deny removing some of the netting and irrigation but said that it was past its useful life. He also said that the netting and components of the irrigation system remained on the property. He alleged that he had done nothing without Major’s knowledge and consent.

32. In order to succeed in this part of the claim the lessor needs to prove what was on the farm at the commencement of the lease, and what was there at the end. As stated above, the evidence which is supplied by Major is of a general nature only. There is no ingoing report, and no detailed evidence of the condition of the improvements at the commencement of the tenancy. In addition, the evidence supporting the quantum of the claim consists of quotations, but there is no evidence that the items quoted are necessary to reinstate what was on the farm. Danny said that he and Major are experienced farmers and thus are qualified to assess what is necessary, but this evidence is not supported by any independent evidence.

33. For these reasons I am not satisfied that Major has proven an entitlement to the compensation sought. This part of the claim is dismissed.

34. For completeness I note s 19A of the ATA:

19A Compensation for deterioration

(1) It is a term of a tenancy that the tenant must pay the owner fair compensation for any deterioration of the farm during the tenancy owing to the failure of the tenant to manage the farm in accordance with good farm management or the provisions of any agreement creating the tenancy, or both.

(2) For the purposes of determining the compensation payable for any deterioration of the farm, the amount of compensation is an amount representing the decrease in the value of the farm as a result of the deterioration.

(3) The compensation is payable when the deterioration is evident.

(4) The rights of an owner under this section are displaced by an agreement--

(a) to the extent that those rights are expressly waived by the agreement, or

(b) to the extent that the management of the farm (being management that is material to any claim for compensation under this section) is expressly authorised by the agreement.

35. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of the value of the farm at the commencement or end of the tenancy, and no evidence of the decrease in value of the farm (if any) as a result of the alleged deterioration.

Tijen Sidhu’s farm – the competing claims

36. The lessor claims $124,713.00 for rent from 1 October 2024 to the end of the tenancy, $378.92 for outstanding legal costs, and interest of $1,580.64 to 26 March 2025, and continuing. The lessor also claims $111,297.75 for deterioration of the farm, and $42,500.00 to replace 8,500 blueberry plants removed by the lessee.

37. The lessee opposes the orders sought. He did not lodge an application against Tijen Sidhu (his application 2024/00426701 was completed by the orders made on 11 December 2024), but in his documents he claims $210,000.00 in compensation, being $90,000.00 as lost income from subletting the hothouses, and $120,000.00 for loss of income from bananas. I am satisfied that it is consistent with the Tribunal guiding principle that I consider the claim as if an application had been lodged.

Tijen’s claim for rent to the end of the term

38. Tijen provides a rent ledger which was not disputed by Paramjit. It shows rent paid to 30 September 2024, with $3,000.00 in hand (the payment made on 18 November 2024). I am satisfied that the lessee is liable for rent in the sum of $15,335.00 to 28 February 2025.

39. However, I disallow the claim for rent to the end of the term, on the basis that there is no evidence of what steps the lessor has taken to rent the farm at the best rent possible, as required by clause 10 (a).

Tijen’s claim for legal fees

40. I am satisfied that the sum of $378.92 is outstanding for the legal costs on the lease and I allow that amount.

Interest on rent owing

41. I allow interest on the unpaid sums up to the date of these orders and continuing at 12% per annum, pursuant to the lease. The calculation of interest up to 1 October 2024 amounts to $539.55. The lessor should submit a calculation of interest from that date on the amounts allowed under these orders for consideration by the Tribunal.

Tijen’s claim for compensation for degradation of the farm

42. Tijen claims an amount of $111,297.75 for replacement of driplines, weed matting, netting wire, crop watering and fertilising infrastructure, labour for installation, slashing, rubbish removal and electrical hardware.

43. As evidence of the condition of the property at the commencement of the lease, she provides google earth photos of the farm dated 18 August 2022. The photos show white and black netting in various areas of the property. She says that those areas of netting are not present at the end of the lease, and provides photos to support that submission.

44. There is otherwise no evidence of the condition of the infrastructure at the commencement of the lease.

45. The evidence of the cost of replacing infrastructure by way of quotations is also deficient in that there is no evidence to support the claim that the quoted materials and labour are what is necessary to replace the infrastructure removed since the commencement of the lease.

46. For completeness the Tribunal notes s 19A of the ATA:

19A Compensation for deterioration

(1) It is a term of a tenancy that the tenant must pay the owner fair compensation for any deterioration of the farm during the tenancy owing to the failure of the tenant to manage the farm in accordance with good farm management or the provisions of any agreement creating the tenancy, or both.

(2) For the purposes of determining the compensation payable for any deterioration of the farm, the amount of compensation is an amount representing the decrease in the value of the farm as a result of the deterioration.

(3) The compensation is payable when the deterioration is evident.

(4) The rights of an owner under this section are displaced by an agreement--

(a) to the extent that those rights are expressly waived by the agreement, or

(b) to the extent that the management of the farm (being management that is material to any claim for compensation under this section) is expressly authorised by the agreement.

47. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of the value of the farm at the commencement of end of the tenancy, and no evidence of the decrease in value of the farm (if any) as a result of the alleged deterioration.

48. There are however parts of the claim which the Tribunal will allow:

• I note that the order made on 11 December 2024 required the lessee to use a qualified electrician to remove the electrical works. There is no evidence to support the lessee’s submission that he did so. The Tribunal will allow the sum of $1100.00 for a qualified electrician to make good.

• I accept that the lessee has left rubbish on the property and has not made good when removing the hothouses. The Tribunal allows the sum of $3,200 for the cost of the skip bins, and $7,800 to remove the rubbish and slash the grass.

Paramjit’s claim for lost income from subletting

49. The claim for lost income from subletting must fail. The lessor gives evidence that there was no consent given to Paramjit to sublet the farm, and the lessee provides no evidence that there was. The lease contains clause 6, which prohibits subletting. There is no basis for this claim, and it is dismissed.

Paramjit’s claim for lost income from bananas

50. Paramjit’s claim for lost income must also fail. The lease was terminated by consent. The lessee was in default of his obligations to pay rent. There is no basis for the lessee’s claim.

Orders

51. The Tribunal makes the following orders:

1. The claims by Paramjit Sidhu 2024/00427584 and 2025/00006825 are dismissed.

2. On file 2025/00022027, Paramjit Sidhu is to pay Major Sidhu the sum of $25,000.00 immediately.

Details of money order

Rent from 1 October 2024 to 28 February 2025 $25,000.00

3. On file 2024/00446907, Paramjit Sidhu is to pay Tijen Sidhu the sum of immediately.

Details of money order

Rent from 1 October 2024 to 28 February 2025 with $3000 in hand $15,335.00

Balance legal fees on lease $378.92

Interest on late rent payments to 1 October 2024 $539.35

Electrical works $1100.00

Removal of rubbish and slash property $11,000.00

4. Paramjit Sidhu is also to pay interest in accordance with the lease, at 12% per annum, on the rent owing at order 3, and for that purpose Tijen Sidhu is by 14 June 2025 to submit to the Tribunal a calculation of the interest claimed to the date of these orders.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 20 August 2025