Removing unsold stock and walking away from rented retail space does not at law amount to surrender of a lease; the lease still runs and rentals accrue unless the landlord in some manner accepts the lease is at an end.
Hardeep Singh’s Christchurch liquor business, at Riccarton’s Bush Inn shopping centre, was forced into liquidation for unpaid rentals in excess of $170,000.
Mr Singh claimed Bush Inn had taken back the lease by agreement and there was no ongoing rental commitment.
This lease is in name of Mr Singh’s Big Daddys Ltd. As guarantor, he is on the hook personally for unpaid rent.
The High Court was told Bush Inn management expressed concern in early September 2024 after finding all stock and the tenant’s fixtures had been removed over one weekend from Big Daddys rented retail space.
The lease had been running for a little over two years. In that time, Bush Inn had been forced twice to take legal action to force payment of rent arrears.
Mr Singh claimed the lease was now at an end, some six years prior to its 2030 previously agreed termination date.
He said a Bush Inn employee had asked for return of the keys; evidence that Bush Inn accepted surrender of the lease, Mr Singh said.
Bush Inn said no surrender had been accepted. Mr Singh misrepresented circumstances surrounding a request for the keys, it claimed. Keys were needed to allow access for routine air conditioning maintenance.
There had been no surrender, Associate Judge Paulsen ruled.
Surrender requires actions by a landlord inconsistent with a tenant’s ongoing occupation, such as a landlord re-taking possession, advertising for a new tenant, or re-letting the property.
Big Daddys liability on the lease continued despite its departure.
The court was told Mr Singh has personally guaranteed payment of Big Daddys’ lease rentals.
Bush Inn Shopping Centre Ltd v. Big Daddys Ltd – High Court (20.08.25)
15.183