The Court held that where a landlord seeks vacant possession of premises occupied by subtenants, the landlord must serve notices to vacate on the subtenants (whether under s 91ZZJ or otherwise) in addition to the head tenant; a possession order against the head tenant alone is legally ineffective to obtain vacant possession because s 334 of the RTA terminates the head tenancy before possession is delivered, thereby enlivening s 91R to create new direct tenancies between the landlord and subtenants. The Tribunal's failure to consider the operation of s 334 was an error of law affecting both jurisdiction and discretion. The Court also held that the power under s 148(7)(d) of the VCAT Act to make orders the Court considers appropriate is limited to incidental orders giving effect to the substantive decision and does not extend to document production orders sought in contemplation of future proceedings.
The full text is available to signed-in members.