A tenant at a rental in Christchurch has told the Tenancy Tribunal he would have “preferred to return to prison” than stay at the property due to its poor state.
The tenant, whose name is suppressed, was released from prison the day before his tenancy began in the suburb of Spreydon, on October 29, 2025.
The landlord, Krishna Rani Saha, had offered a room at the premises for the tenant to rent. She had the tenant sign the tenancy agreement at a friend’s place, before he viewed the property.
The tenant also paid a $1440 bond and two weeks’ rent through the Ministry of Social Development.
When the tenant went to the property on October 30, he told the Tenancy Tribunal there was faecal matter on the bed, the carpet in the hallway was wet, and the kitchen was “disgusting”.
A friend of the tenant said the room “smelled like a sewer” and was “pretty unsanitary” – and was “cold and damp” with “flies everywhere”.
"He said he would not let a dog sleep there."
Due to the property’s state, he told the Tenancy Tribunal he did not take possession of the rental. He then informed the landlord, who agreed to end the tenancy but required he paid rent to the end of the three-week notice period.
The pair then met at a library, where the landlord wanted him to sign a bond release form for him to receive $900 from his bond.
The tenant refused – and a verbal altercation followed – which ended with the landlord making a police complaint.
The tenant then applied for the refund of his bond and the rent he had paid. The landlord then cross-applied, and was seeking rent arrears from the bond, and what remained of the bond being paid to the tenant.
In his decision, adjudicator John Greene said it was a case where “the landlord cannot benefit from her failure to ensure the premises was suitable to be rented”.
“To allow her to keep the rent paid in advance and the bond when the tenant did not take possession due to the state of the premises would be unjust to the tenant, vulnerable due to his circumstances."
The Tenancy Tribunal decided the landlord must refund the rent paid in advance, and the bond in full.
“She has no right to claim the balance of rent in lieu of notice; and she has no claim on the bond,” Greene said.
Greene noted the landlord chooses to offer tenancies on a room-by-room basis, which “presents challenges”, since the tenant is renting a room but with access to shared facilities.
“Unless the landlord institutes a proper process by conducting a viewing with the tenant and having them sign a tenancy agreement after seeing the room they are going to rent, it is likely that the Tribunal will take a similar position to the one I have taken in this case.”
Greene also acknowledged issues of the tenant’s behaviour which was raised to the tribunal by the landlord.
He noted although some of the tenant’s comments were “inappropriate”, including comments made in his application “they are not matters the Tribunal need address by the way of orders”.
The landlord was then required to pay a rent refund of $720 to the tenant and a $28 filing fee reimbursement. The tenant would also receive the full bond of $1440.
The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including why not to get complacent about storm warnings, President Trump threatens to blockade the strait of Hormuz, and Justin Bieber takes over Coachella. (Source: 1News)
SHARE ME