Landlord unable to evict tenant claimed to be running a brothel from the apartment

Friday, 23 May 2025

A landlord sought to terminate the tenancy of a central Auckland apartment on the grounds that the tenant was operation a commercial business, namely a brothel, from the premises. (file pic)

The landlord of an apartment in a central Auckland multi-storey building sought to have a tenant evicted on the grounds they were operating a brothel from the premises.

The tenant denied such a service was operating from the apartment, and said he had been offered sexual services in the building’s lift.

The tribunal dismissed the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy, citing a lack of evidence to show the premises were not being occupied principally for residential purposes.

A landlord has failed in a bid to evict a tenant claimed to be running a brothel from an apartment in a multi-storey central Auckland building.

The property landlord GK Group Property sought an order at the Tenancy Tribunal terminating the tenancy, on the grounds that the tenant had breached a term of his tenancy agreement by operating a commercial business, namely a brothel, from the apartment.

The tenant denied such a service was operating from his apartment, and confirmed he was using the premises primarily as his place of residence, Tribunal adjudicator Kaye Stirling said in her decision on the matter.

The tenant gave evidence to the tribunal that he had been approached by women in the building lift offering sexual services, while a Google search he conducted showed various people may be operating as sex workers from the building, he said.

The tenant denied the claim sex services were being offered at the apartment, and said he had been offered sex in the building’s lift. (file pic)

The tenancy agreement for the property said the tenant should use the property “principally for residential purposes”, Stirling said.

Stirling also noted that the Residential Tenancies Act specifically envisaged that, while being principally occupied by a tenant as a place to live, premises may be used for both commercial and residential purposes.

She was not satisfied the landlord had provided evidence that showed the premises were not being occupied principally for residential purposes.

“While the evidence might suggest that an occupant is operating from the premises as a sex worker, it does not establish that the premises are not also being occupied primarily as a residence by the tenant and his flatmates,” Stirling said in the tribunal decision.

Mr Shi and Ms Sun, directors of the landlord company, received a report from the building manager that he had seen an advertisement promoting sex services from the apartment, the decision said.

Directors of the landlord company said they had received a report from the building manager that he had seen an advertisement promoting sex services from the apartment. (file pic)

A text message produced in evidence appeared to be from a sex worker confirming her availability and that the client should come to that apartment number for sex services.

The landlord provided copies of various internet advertisements for sex services operating at the address for the building. The advertisements did not specify the apartment number.

Screenshots of photos of an Asian woman advertising her services as a sex worker from the building were also provided as evidence.

The landlord provided CCTV images collected by the building manager purporting to show men and women coming and going from the premises at various times of the day and night.

“The landlord suggests that the women are sex workers operating from the premises and the men are their clients,” the decision said.

When the landlord inspected the apartment, the tenant was there with two Asian women who were also living at the premises.

Shi asked the tenant about the women. The tenant said they were both Thai and were university students. One was his girlfriend and the other her friend.

The tenant had given evidence that website photos of a sex worker supplied by the landlord were neither of his flatmates.

“The tenant says he has not directly put these allegations to his girlfriend’s friend living with them because the landlord had not provided any evidence to link her to the allegations,” Stirling said in her decision.

The tenant said the CCTV images purporting to show people visiting the premises at various times of the day and night, in many instances showed people coming out of or standing by the lift.

“None of the images establish that all those shown have entered the apartment. He says some of the photos are of him.”

The address of the apartment and the tenant’s identity were suppressed in the tribunal decision.