Termination notice invalid: tenant keeps home after notice found retaliatory (SACAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenant rented a unit under a periodic tenancy agreement, which is a tenancy that runs on from period to period with no fixed end date. Both sides agreed the tenancy was covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (SA). The tenant had been in the property for about 30 years.

The tenant had applied to the Tribunal seeking repairs to the roof and guttering at the premises. The landlord was made aware of that application on 24 June 2026. Two days later, on 26 June 2026, a Form 7 notice of termination (the form used when a landlord says they require possession) was personally served on the tenant. The form had two checkboxes marked: that possession was required for repairs or renovations that could not conveniently be done while the tenant stayed, and that possession was required for occupation by the landlord, their spouse, child or parent, or the spouse of the landlord's child or parent. No documents were served with the notice.

The landlord said she needed the unit for her uncle, who is dying of cancer and whose own house was too large for him. She said he had asked for the unit and had helped build it, that the kitchen and bathroom would be renovated to suit his needs, and that her brother was also to move in with him. The renovations she described were not the repairs the tenant had asked for.

When the Tribunal asked when the uncle had made that request, the landlord first said it was within a day before the notice was served, then said it was just before the next time she collected rent, then said she had chosen not to serve the notice while the earlier case was on foot. The Tribunal recorded that the tenant had never been told, at any time in the 30-year tenancy, that the landlord or a family member would be moving in, and that the repairs he sought were all exterior and could conveniently be carried out while he remained in the unit.

What each side wanted

The tenant asked the Tribunal to declare that his tenancy agreement had not been validly terminated by the notice. He argued mainly that the notice was retaliation for his repairs application, and in addition or in the alternative that the notice itself was defective in form. The landlord argued she genuinely required the premises for her dying uncle and had to renovate the kitchen and bathrooms to suit his needs. Both parties appeared in person.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal declared that the residential tenancy agreement had not been validly terminated by the notice issued on Wednesday 26 June 2026. No money was ordered to be paid by either side.

The Tribunal was careful to limit what the declaration did. It said the decision only removed the effect of that particular notice of termination and did not change the ongoing rights of either the tenant or the landlord under the periodic tenancy agreement. Subject to any further agreement between the parties, or a valid termination by either of them, the tenancy continues.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The first reason was a straightforward compliance point. Section 91(1)(ea) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 requires a notice of termination to be accompanied by written evidence approved by the Commissioner for the ground relied on. It was agreed that no written evidence was served with the notice, so the Tribunal found the notice did not have the legal effect of ending the tenancy.

The second reason went to who may move in. The wording ticked on the Form 7 is taken word for word from section 81(1)(c) of the Act, which covers occupation by the landlord, their spouse, child or parent, or the spouse of the landlord's child or parent. The people the landlord intended to move in were her uncle and her brother. The Tribunal found neither of them is a person to whom section 81(1)(c) applies, so that ground could not support the notice.

The Tribunal then dealt with retaliation at the tenant's request, even though the declaration had already been made on the two grounds above. Section 90A allows the Tribunal to make orders about retaliatory behaviour where the landlord was wholly or partly motivated to act because the tenant had applied or proposed to apply to the Tribunal, had taken or proposed to take other action to enforce a right, or because a Tribunal order was in force between them. Given the absence of any earlier mention of a family member moving in, the fact that the repairs sought could be done with the tenant in place, and the very short gap between the landlord learning of the application and serving the notice, the Tribunal presumed the notice was at least partly motivated by the tenant's application. The landlord was given the chance to rebut that presumption, but her answers about timing were vague, inconsistent and appeared evasive. The Tribunal found the notice was retaliatory and said it would have exercised the section 90A discretion to declare the notice of no effect had it needed to.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows that a landlord's notice of termination is only effective if it meets the specific requirements attached to it. In South Australia, that includes serving the written evidence the Commissioner has approved for the ground being relied on, and relying on a ground that actually fits the facts. The family-occupation ground in section 81(1)(c) is limited to the landlord, their spouse, child or parent, or the spouse of their child or parent, so an uncle or a brother does not fall within it no matter how genuine the need.

The decision also shows how the retaliation rule in section 90A is applied in practice. The Tribunal did not need proof of a bad motive; a short gap between the landlord learning of a tenant's Tribunal application and serving a notice, combined with no earlier mention of the stated reason, was enough for the Tribunal to presume retaliation and then ask the landlord to explain. Inconsistent evidence about the timing did not rebut that presumption.

It is also worth noting what a declaration like this does not do. It removed the effect of one notice only, and left both the tenant's and the landlord's ongoing rights under the periodic tenancy untouched, so a later valid notice remains possible. Where someone disputes a termination notice, the step most people take first is a written response to the landlord or agent setting out why they say the notice is not valid, before making any application to the tribunal.

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

Source: Mydlak v Cassoudakis [2026] SACAT 94 (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.