Ajayan v Zhu [2022] NSWCATCD 34

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ajayan v Zhu [2022] NSWCATCD 34 Hearing dates: 25 March 2022 Date of orders: 29 March 2022 Decision date: 29 March 2022 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: D Moujalli, Senior Member Decision: 1. The Tribunal directs the Rental Bond Board to pay $1,005 from rental bond No. S918568-8 to the respondent/landlord. 2. The Tribunal directs the Rental Bond Board to pay the balance of the rental bond of $595 to the applicant/tenant. Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES – Tenant's obligation not to damage residential premises - Rental bond - Payment and release Legislation Cited: Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mukesh Pulikkapparambil Ajayan (Applicant)

J Zhu (Respondents) Representation: Applicant (Self-represented)

Respondent (Self-represented) File Number(s): RT22/03954 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. On 29 January 2022 the applicant, as the former tenant of residential premises, lodged an application with the Tribunal against the respondent as the landlord of the premises (the Application). The applicant seeks an order in relation to the payment of the rental bond under s 175 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (RTA). 2. The applicant and the respondent are agreed that $1,005 of the rental bond should be paid to the respondent landlord. This is to compensate the landlord for repair to the light bulbs in the premises ($200 plus GST), cleaning of the premises ($350 plus GST) and for the early termination by the applicant tenant of the residential tenancy agreement ($400). 3. There remains a dispute as to the payment of the balance of the rental bond. The respondent claims an amount of either $550 or $495 for repair to the vanity in the bathroom of the premises. 4. The rental bond provided by the applicant has not been released by the Rental Bond Board pending determination of the dispute between the parties. 5. At the hearing on 25 March 2022, the applicant was self-represented and the respondent was represented by his property manager, Mr Gu. 6. The hearing on 25 March 2022 proceeded by telephone. 7. At the hearing each party was given an opportunity to present their evidence, ask questions of the other party and make submissions. 8. Both the applicant and Mr Gu participated in the hearing in a respectful manner and the Tribunal is grateful for their assistance and co-operation in the conduct of the hearing.