Welch v Chabra [2022] NSWCATCD 132

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Welch v Chabra [2022] NSWCATCD 132 Hearing dates: 15 August 2022 Date of orders: 19 August 2022 Decision date: 19 August 2022 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: K George, General Member Decision: 1. The applicant's name is amended to Karen Lee Welch and Michael Trenley Welch. 2. The rent shall not exceed $1520.00 per week from 2 August 2022 to 1 August 2023. 3. Any overpaid rent is to be paid as a rent credit to the tenants' account within 7 days of the date of these orders. Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — Rent — Excessive rent — Rent increases Legislation Cited: Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Residential Tenancy Regulations 2019 (NSW) Cases Cited: Randy River Health and Beauty Aid Co P/L t/as Middlerock Village Park v CTTT [2007] NSWSC 1142 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Karen Lee Welch and Michael Trenley Welch (Applicants)

Sudeep Chabra (Respondent) Representation: Applicants (self-represented)

Respondent (self-represented) File Number(s): RT 22/22413 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. By application to the Tribunal dated 22 May 2022 the tenants seek an order pursuant to section 44(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) ('the Act') that a rent increase is excessive. 2. The tenant Mr Welch appeared in person at the hearing and gave sworn oral evidence. He relied on one folder of documents sent to the Tribunal and to the landlord and marked as Exhibit A. 3. The landlord appeared in person at the hearing and gave sworn oral evidence. He relied on documents sent to the Tribunal and to the tenants marked as Exhibit B. Mr Noakes, a real estate agent, also provided sworn oral evidence for the landlord. 4. At the commencement of the hearing the landlord sought leave to submit further evidence, including evidence of comparable rents. This was opposed by the tenants who had not had the opportunity to consider the documentation. 5. The Tribunal refused leave because on the last occasion the orders were that the landlord should provide all documents by 18 July 2022, a delay of nearly four weeks. It would be prejudicial to the tenants to allow the landlord to rely on those documents and not in the interests of the just, quick and cheap resolution of the proceedings. 6. On 17 August 2022 the Tribunal received an email from the respondent landlord stating in part: 'the Applicant sent an email to my real estate agent at 5:58pm on Sunday 15 August 2022, advising he had made a section 53 variation to their submission to the Tribunal. No copy of the variation was provided to the Respondent by the Applicant. I am concerned the Registrar is reviewing the evidence from the Applicant including this s53 variation, that I have not had the opportunity to review or consider and was therefore was not able to respond to in the hearing.' 1. The Tribunal is unaware of a 'section 53 variation' in relation to this matter. In any event, this is an issue the landlord should have raised at the hearing.