Section 91ZZA NTV & Reasonable and Proportionate
GPC v GEM (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 1116
Decision Date: 16 December 2025
Key Issue: Whether it was reasonable and proportionate under section 330A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) to grant a possession order where the rental providers sought to recover the premises for occupation by their daughter under section 91ZZA.
Full Case: GPC v GEM (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 1116 (16 December 2025)
Background
The renter (GEM) had lived for approximately seven years in a cabin located on a farm owned by the rental providers (GPC), who resided in a separate dwelling on the same property.
On 22 April 2025, the rental providers issued an NTV under section 91ZZA, asserting that their adult daughter, who has Down syndrome and epilepsy, intended to move into the premises to support her transition toward independent living.
The notice was valid and supported by statutory declarations. After the renter did not vacate, the rental providers applied to VCAT for a possession order.
The central dispute was not validity, but whether granting possession was reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances.
Issues
VCAT considered:
Whether the rental providers had demonstrated a genuine and compelling need for their daughter to occupy the premises
Whether the renter would suffer greater hardship if evicted, particularly given their mental health circumstances
The availability of alternative housing options for both parties
The renter’s efforts to secure alternative accommodation
The history of repeated eviction attempts by the rental providers on similar grounds
The overall balancing exercise required under section 330A
Decision
VCAT dismissed the application for a possession order, finding that it was not reasonable and proportionate to evict the renter.
The Tribunal also ordered that the parties’ names be anonymised, but declined to make a formal suppression order due to insufficient evidence.
Reasons
The Tribunal accepted that the rental providers’ daughter would benefit from increased independence, but found the supporting evidence to be limited and unpersuasive. The material provided did not establish that moving into the rented premises was necessary, or that no viable alternatives existed.
In contrast, the renter provided strong and detailed evidence of hardship. This included:
A diagnosis of major depressive disorder and anxiety
The need for isolation and stability, which the current premises provided
Established connections with local medical and support services
Demonstrated but unsuccessful efforts to find alternative accommodation
The Tribunal also gave weight to the history of prior unsuccessful eviction attempts, which raised questions about the strength and consistency of the rental providers’ position.
Balancing these factors, VCAT found that the potential detriment to the renter outweighed the benefit to the rental providers, and that eviction would not be justified.
Key Takeaways
Even where an NTV is valid, a possession order is not automatic
The Tribunal must carefully assess reasonableness and proportionality under section 330A
Strong, evidence-based hardship claims—especially involving mental health—can outweigh a rental provider’s intentions
Repeated attempts to evict may undermine the credibility of a rental provider’s case
Evidence supporting family occupation must show necessity, not just preference or convenience
