Raju v Sharma [2016] NSWCATAP 207

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Raju v Sharma [2016] NSWCATAP 207 Hearing dates: 22 August 2016 Date of orders: 12 September 2016 Decision date: 12 September 2016 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: R Titterton, Senior Member D Fairlie, Senior Member Decision: (1) Leave to appeal refused (2) Appeal otherwise dismissed Catchwords: APPEAL from a decision of the Consumer and Trader Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal – refusal of the Tribunal to adjourn proceedings to allow evidence to be adduced at a later date – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Cases Cited: Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 69 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rahul Krishna Raju (Appellant) Sudesh Sharma (Respondent) Representation: Rahul Krishna Raju (Appellant in person) File Number(s): AP 16/28989 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Date of Decision: 21 June 2016 Before: G Sarginson File Number(s): RT 16/14288, RT 16/26956

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal (the Tribunal) of 21 June 2016 (the Decision). The Decision considered two applications. 2. The first application was the claim of the present appellant (the tenant) (RT 16/14288). In that application, the tenant sought orders that the Tribunal direct the present respondent (the landlord) to provide him with bank details for the payment of rent, not to park vehicles in the driveway of the premises, and a rent reduction on the basis that the landlord parked cars, utilities and a flat-bed truck in the driveway of the premises which prevented the tenant from using the driveway. These claims were dismissed. The tenant also claimed that, by reason of the actions of the landlord (namely working on his truck in the driveway, starting the truck early in the morning parking it late at night), he had suffered a significant loss of amenity of the premises. He quantified his claim as $2,028.00. The Tribunal allowed $500.00. This amount was offset against the rental arrears owing, and the amount of rental arrears ordered to be paid in application RT 16/14288 ($3,000.00), reflects that offset. While the Tribunal ordered compensation of $500.00, this was ordered in respect of the noise and fumes of his truck, not because it was parked at the premises: see par [34]. 3. The second application was the application of the landlord (RT 16/26956). The landlord sought termination of the residential tenancy agreement, possession of the premises and payment of rental arrears. The Tribunal dismissed the application for termination and possession, but ordered the present appellant (the tenant) to pay the landlord rental arrears in the sum of $3,000.00.