The High Court has rejected Ajay Marwaha’s appeal against a Residential Tenancies Board tribunal determination that upheld the termination of his tenancy for non-payment of rent.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 7 June 2016. The appeal, brought under section 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, challenged the Tribunal’s determination order of 3 July 2015. The High Court dismissed it, finding no basis to set aside the order.
An adjudicator had heard the landlord’s complaint on 9 December 2014 and found that Mr Marwaha had been served with a valid notice of termination on 29 October 2014. The adjudicator directed him to leave within 28 days and to pay outstanding rent and damages for breach of his rent-payment obligation. On appeal, the Tenancy Tribunal rejected his challenge, upheld the notice and directed him to leave within 28 days and pay outstanding rent.
Mr Marwaha raised eight grounds in the High Court, including that the Board had failed to comply with section 121, that the determination was against the evidence, and that there was no physical proof or witness to the notice being delivered. He also argued that the Tribunal had not taken account of his more than 10 years as a tenant and that his legal rights had not been respected.
The judge explained that the statutory appeal concerned errors of law in the Tribunal’s determination or process. The court could not overturn factual findings where evidence supported them, though it could intervene for legal error, misinterpretation of documents or conclusions that could not reasonably be drawn.
The Board had issued the required documents, the judge found, and there was evidence they had been sent; Mr Marwaha had received them and relied on them in his appeals. The court also held that the length of the tenancy was irrelevant once the Tribunal found a breach of rent-payment obligations.
On service, the judge noted that the Act allowed a termination notice to be served by leaving it at the address where the recipient ordinarily lived; posting it and keeping proof of postage was not required. The Tribunal had accepted evidence from the landlord’s agent that service had been properly effected, and the judge found a sound evidential basis for that conclusion. The other grounds disclosed no legal error.
The judgment also observed that the landlord, who had a direct interest in the appeal, should have been joined to the proceedings. The failure to join the landlord did not affect the court’s reasoning or have practical consequences in this case. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Tribunal’s determination undisturbed.