Panna and Patel v Markland [2014] NSWCATCD 238

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Panna and Patel v Markland [2014] NSWCATCD 238 Hearing dates: 30 October 2014 Decision date: 09 December 2014 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: C R Xuereb, General Member Decision: The Rental Bond Services is directed to pay the tenants, Krishna Panna and Zuheir Patel, the whole of the Bond plus interest of Rental Bond number K718588-3. Catchwords: Landlord's obligation to provide and maintain premises in reasonable state of repair, termination by tenant, break-fees Legislation Cited: Residential Tenancies Act 2010 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kishwar Panna and Zuheir Patel (applicants) Amanda Markland (respondent Representation: Kishwar Panna for applicants Eleni Kolotas (agent) for respondent File Number(s): RT 14/41599 Publication restriction: Nil

reasons for decision

APPLICATION 1. This is an application by former tenants of the respondent for an order that the Rental Bond including interest be paid to them following their termination of the Residential Tenancy Agreement.

JURISDICTION 1. The dispute between the applicants and the respondent arises from their relationship as tenants and landlords under a Residential Tenancy Agreement governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 2010. Part 9 of the Residential Tenancies Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to hear and determine disputes.

BACKGROUND 1. The applicants entered into a Residential Tenancy Agreement with the Respondent in June 2014. The Residential Tenancy Agreement is dated 20 June 2014 and provides that the term of the agreement is 104 weeks, starting on 27 June 2014 and ending on 23 June 2016. 2. The applicants contend that the premises were not in a reasonable state of repair when they entered into occupation of the premises. Furthermore, despite requests made by them to the respondent's agent, the works necessary to bring the premises to a standard of repair which was adequate were not carried out during their occupation of the premises. 3. As the repair works were not carried out, the applicants served a Notice of Termination on the respondent. The Notice of Termination cited the respondent's breaches of the Residential Tenancy Agreement. 4. The applicants vacated the premises and sought a refund of the Bond. The respondent declined to authorise a release of the Bond on the basis that the tenant was bound to pay break costs for the early termination of the Residential Tenancy Agreement. The Bond held was an amount equivalent to four weeks' rent. The respondent asserted that the applicable break fee was an amount equal to six weeks' rent. The respondent did not, however, file any cross-application claiming the six weeks' break fee. 5. The applicants brought the application to the Tribunal to recover the Bond which they had paid.