When a family was confronted with a sudden cancer diagnosis, they began plans to return to their home, which they had rented out.But when the tenants exercised their right to extend the fixed-term tenancy for another year as they awaited the birth of their child, landlord Kirsty Whiting was out of luck.Out of frustration, she increased the couple's rent at the Mission Bay home and applied to the Tenancy Tribunal to end the tenancy on the grounds of severe hardship.Tenant Alex Duval counter-applied to the tribunal to reduce the rent, claiming it was above market rate.In a recently released decision, tribunal adjudicator Nicole Walker found Duval had every right to renew his tenancy agreement and allowed him and his partner to stay in the property for another year."While I accept that there has been an unforeseen change for the landlord, and the situation for the landlord and her family is likely to be very challenging, I am unable to determine that the landlord will suffer severe hardship if the tenancy is not reduced," she ruled.According to the decision, the tenancy began on 29 March 2025, and was for a fixed term due to end on the same date this year.However, Duval and his partner wanted to extend the tenancy by a year as they were looking for a long-term place to call home, as they expected their child.Duval's tenancy agreement included a right of renewal, giving him the option to renew the fixed term for a further period by giving written notice at least 21 days before the end of the original term.He exercised that right, emailing the Whitings on 17 February 2026, to formally confirm renewal under the agreement.The tenancy agreement had been drafted by Whiting using the Residential Tenancies Agreement Builder on the Tenancy Services website. The inclusion of a right of renewal clause is optional.That notice was sent 40 days before the end of the fixed term.However, around 10 days earlier, Whiting had messaged the tenants via WhatsApp saying she wanted to end the tenancy."Hi Alex and Jessie, I just wanted to give you guys the heads up as early as possible - we have decided to renovate my place and move in. So sorry," the message said.She told them she understood their lease was due to end on 29 March and that they would proceed with plans from that date. She apologised for the timing, noting it was unfortunate, but said that after careful consideration, it was the best decision for her family.Whiting told the tribunal the decision followed a shock cancer diagnosis of a family member in 2025, and said the family would suffer severe hardship if they could not return to live in the property.The plan was for the family to move back in and renovate the garage to give that family member her own space, adding that the family member's mental health remained fragile after chemotherapy.She argued the tenancy would not continue beyond the fixed term because notice had already been given before the tenant exercised the right of renewal.Whiting also claimed the tenant's response to her notice amounted to agreement that the tenancy would end.Duval had responded to Whiting saying, "All good."But Walker found the reply message was not evidence of agreement."Instead, I consider this response to be more of an acknowledgment of receipt of the landlord's communication."At the hearing, the landlord proposed that the tenants could remain in the property for three months after the baby's due date in mid-May 2026, with the fixed term reduced to end on 7 August 2026.However, Walker again was not satisfied that the landlord would suffer severe hardship if the tenancy continued.Whiting's application to shorten the fixed term was dismissed, meaning the tenancy would continue to March 2027.The tenant argued rents were actually falling, not rising. (File photo)RNZ / Nate McKinnonTenant's successful rent reductionThe tenant also applied to the tribunal to reduce the weekly rent after a significant increase was proposed.On 18 February 2026, Whiting emailed the tenant advising that, because they could not agree on a vacate date, she was giving 60 days' notice of a rent increase from $900 to $1120 per week.The increase of 24.5 percent was to take effect on 19 April 2026.Duval argued the increase was not aligned with market rates and instead reflected the landlord's financial position. He said the rental market had softened, with Auckland rents falling in 2025 compared with 2024.He provided data from the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand from January 2026, noting that while Mission Bay figures were not specified, nearby Remuera had seen a 13.3 percent drop in weekly rents for three-bedroom homes.He argued the current rent of $900 was already at or above market levels for the property.Although Whiting initially sought $1120 per week, she later submitted at the hearing that a more appropriate figure would be $975, saying she had obtained three rental appraisals indicating market rent was between $950 and $995."I take this as the landlord accepting that the original proposed increase was not in line with the market rent for this tenancy," Walker found."I conclude that the proposed weekly rent of $1120 for these premises is not market rent."Walker set the rent at $950 per week, effective from 19 April 2026.- This story originally appeared in the New Zealand HeraldOpen Justice