Tenants ordered out but given the maximum 90 days after repair termination notice held valid (SACAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenants, a married couple, had lived in the premises since 2018 under a residential tenancy agreement. On 5 March 2026 the landlords' agent served a Form 7 notice, which is the prescribed form for ending a periodic tenancy because the landlord requires possession. The ground stated on the notice was that the landlord required possession for repairs or renovations that could not be carried out conveniently while the tenants remained in the property.

The agent gave evidence, which was not disputed, that the only document served with the notice was an undated quotation from Civil Plumbing and Drainage. The property was about 100 years old and the landlords had decided to replace its earthenware pipes. The quote was for $36,900.00 and said the work was expected to take months, depending on the availability of other trades. The Tribunal recorded that the quote covered replacing all the pipework in the property, including the underground pipes, and would take five to six months or more.

The tenants opposed the timing. The husband, aged 73, had just had major back surgery and during an extended recovery would be unable to do the physical work of moving. They said they had been tenants for eight years, that there was no urgent need for the repairs because a plumber who recently cleared a blocked drain said the pipes should last another two years, and that they had arranged other accommodation but it would not be available until November.

A tenancy advocate appearing for the tenants also argued that the documents served with the notice did not meet the legal requirements, so the notice had no effect.

What each side wanted

The landlords asked for an order for vacant possession, meaning an order setting a date by which the tenants must move out. Their agent said the landlord would prefer the order to take effect in 30 days and was willing to go to 60 days, and raised the reduced availability of trades over the Christmas period. The tenants argued the notice was invalid because the written evidence required to accompany it was missing, and, if the notice was valid, that they should be given more time because of the husband's health, the length of the tenancy and the lack of alternative accommodation until November. They were not willing to agree to a date 60 days or less away, but said they were not intending to simply stay until November and would leave as soon as they could make interim arrangements.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal found the notice of termination valid, found the tenancy had been validly terminated, and made an order for possession under section 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. It then suspended that order for the maximum period available, 90 days.

The orders were that the tenants may remain in the property until Tuesday 18 August 2026, on condition that they pay the rent as and when each instalment falls due. If any rent stays outstanding for more than 14 days, the landlord may make a written request for an urgent hearing so the Tribunal can consider whether the tenants should have to move out earlier. Even if the tenants make all those payments, the tenancy terminates in any event at midday on Tuesday 18 August 2026. If the tenants do not move out, the order may only be enforced by the Tribunal bailiff, and on 18 August 2026 all outstanding rent becomes immediately payable.

No money was ordered to be paid by either side beyond the ongoing rent.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

Under the Act a landlord can end a periodic tenancy only on one of the grounds set out in section 81, or a ground prescribed under section 83. The Tribunal accepted that the notice was in the prescribed form and gave at least 60 days' notice, so as a document it complied. But section 91(1)(ea) requires that, for certain prescribed grounds, the notice be accompanied by written evidence approved by the Commissioner that supports the ground. The ground relied on here is prescribed by regulation 32 of the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2025. The Commissioner's published requirements for this ground were photographic proof that repairs are required, a written statement of why the premises need to be vacated, and either a contract or quote from a suitably qualified tradesperson stating the nature of the repairs and an estimated timeframe, or a copy of the relevant planning or development approval.

The Tribunal noted the requirement for accompanying written evidence only began with amendments that took effect on 1 July 2024, and that there is as yet no binding authority on whether strict compliance is needed. It took a purposive approach, asking whether the documents gave the tenant enough information to make an informed decision to accept or challenge the termination. Because it was not possible to photograph underground pipes, the absence of photographs was not fatal on its own, and the Tribunal also observed that photographs arguably are not "written evidence" at all. The quotation itself showed what work was planned and how long it would take, and from that it could reasonably be inferred that doing the work with the tenants in occupation would cause severe and protracted inconvenience to the occupants and the contractors. So the notice satisfied section 91(1), including paragraph (ea), and was valid.

The Tribunal explained that a tenancy agreement is a contract, and once one party no longer wishes to continue it, it no longer stands, subject to what the Act says. The Act limits a landlord to specific grounds, but if a ground exists the landlord can end the agreement. On that basis the tenants' objections, including that the pipes might last another two years, were not relevant to whether the ground existed: the landlord may choose when to have repairs done and is not confined to the time the repairs become necessary or a time convenient to the tenants.

Those objections were, however, directly relevant to the second stage, which is fixing the move-out date. Section 93 says an order for possession takes effect no more than seven days after it is made unless suspended, and may be suspended for up to 90 days if the tenant satisfies the Tribunal that an order for immediate possession would cause severe hardship. The Tribunal was satisfied of severe hardship, pointing to the relatively long tenancy, the tenants' ages and the husband's health at the time, and decided that suspension for the full 90 days, with rent to keep being paid, was the preferable outcome.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows that South Australian law now splits a landlord's possession case into two questions. The first is whether the notice is valid, which includes whether the supporting documents the Commissioner requires were actually served with it. The second is when the tenants must leave. A notice can be upheld even though one of the listed items was not provided, where providing it was impossible and the documents served still told the tenants what the work was, how long it would take and why the property had to be empty.

It also shows that arguments about whether repairs are urgent, or about how long someone has rented a place, do not go to whether the landlord is allowed to end the tenancy on that ground. The same arguments can carry real weight at the second stage, where health, age, length of tenancy and difficulty finding somewhere else to live can support suspending possession, here for the maximum 90 days rather than the 30 to 60 days the landlord preferred. A suspension can come with conditions, and here continuing to pay rent was the condition, with a right for the landlord to ask for an urgent hearing if rent fell more than 14 days behind.

In disputes of this kind the step most people take first is a formal written notice to the other side that sets out the ground being relied on, attaches the supporting material and gives a clear deadline, followed by an application to the tribunal if the matter is not resolved.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a SACAT application. More decisions: SACAT cases and house rentals and bonds.

Source: Debenham & Anor v Hillier & Anor [2026] SACAT 52 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.