It had one bedroom with a loft area about 1.5m high that was previously used for storage.
His tenancy agreement stated that the maximum number of occupants was one adult, but said he could request in writing to add further occupants, which the landlord had the right to refuse.
Sugita told the tribunal he had one and then two flatmates before he went to Christchurch in December 2023.
“Given this, I find Mr Sugita committed an unlawful act,” the tribunal adjudicator said. “The issue in this case is whether Mr Sugita did so intentionally – that is whether he exceeded the maximum number of occupants knowing he was not permitted to.”
Sugita acknowledged the tenancy agreement had a maximum occupancy of one adult but argued the original ad said he could have up to three people, the adjudicator said.
Sugita could not produce the ad but offered an email exchange with a letting agent in which he asked about another set of keys for a potential flatmate and was told that would be possible.
Morton said he did not have a problem with two people in the apartment.
“I am not satisfied that Mr Sugita intentionally exceeded the maximum number of occupants,” the adjudicator said.
“Given the email exchange ... I accept Mr Sugita believed he was permitted to have up to three people in the apartment. While Mr Sugita did commit an unlawful act, I find he did not do so intentionally, and I therefore decline to award exemplary damages for exceeding the maximum number of persons in the premises.”
However, the adjudicator was satisfied that Sugita sublet the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement.
“A tenant is free to travel and leave their home for an extended period. However, where a tenant is expressly prohibited from subletting, the tenant cannot on-rent the premises to another tenant while they are absent.”
The adjudicator said exemplary damages of $1000 were appropriate.
Sugita made a counter-claim that he was forced to sell furniture quickly or give it away because the tenancy was ended quickly.
He said he should be compensated for outgoings related to hot water and the emotional distress of moving out. He wanted $5780.
The adjudicator said it was not proven that the landlord had breached the agreement regarding the water supply. The flat was in a commercial building that had been converted to apartments in the 1980s, with one water meter.
Morton said each owner paid body corporate fees including the cost of supplying water to each apartment.
