The applicants also recounted that "Roger" had threatened to kill their cat. They recounted an incident on 2 September 1996 where the police were called and two males were fighting at the premises, one of whom was "Roger".

I also heard evidence from Mr Castle but he recounted what Ms Holmes and Mr Sodomka had told him and also recounted some other information he had obtained from other neighbours.

I am satisfied there have been arguments between "Roger" and Ms Campbell at the premises.

Ms Campbell told me that Mr Roger Hunt resides at the neighbouring house premises. She gave evidence to the effect that "Roger" had threatened her and entered her home. She fears for her life. She indicated that she has been seeing counsellors and it is a very difficult situation.

She indicated that she had called the police about "Roger" and that he comes into her premises without her consent.

She told me that "Roger" does not live at the premises and does not pay rent for the premises.

The applicant and Ms Granger who gave evidence, all gave evidence to the effect that they are scared and do not want to put up with the arguing that takes place. On the other hand, the tenant told me that she puts leaves around the house and that she does not want him there. He bangs on her windows. The agents for the landlords of the subject premises are happy to have the tenancy continue and support her.

I accept that the situation for Ms Campbell is a difficult one. She told me that "Roger" is the father of her child. He does not pay maintenance for the child but I think she used the words that he stalks her.

The applicants seemed to take issue with the fact that Ms Campbell had not taken out a restraining order against Mr Hunt. Ms Campbell also told me she had an assault charge on Mr Hunt.

A statement of a witness was tendered, being a statement of Jason Douglas Smith. The statement indicates that Mr Smith is a police officer currently stationed at Glenelg patrol. This statement was tendered by Mr Castle. It recounts an incident on 2 September 1996 but the statement also notes that the address of Unit 2/20 Second Avenue, Ascot Park as known to the police officer as the female occupant had requested police attendance on other occasions relating to domestic disputes.

That statement also confirms that the police officer has, on several other occasions, attended the premises when the occupant had telephoned police "alleging that male 1 was breaking into the premises, threatening her or simply loitering around outside. This female has been advised of and explained the procedure for applying for a restraint order. Members of the police family violence unit have actually spoke to her via phone over the matter and she has declined, on all occasions, to apply for a restraining order." I take it that the reference to "male 1" is a reference to the person called "Roger".

The statement of Jason Smith goes on to say that when he examined the exterior of Unit 2, he had seen a makeshift bed set up in the garage/carport area on several occasions.

He concludes that this has led him to believe that the occupant allows to some extent "male 1 to sleep in the premises and simply calls us when it suits her". Ms Campbell told me that to her knowledge, "Roger" does not sleep there and the tenant told me that she had not issued a restraining order as that would not stop "Roger" and she fears for her life.

The application is made pursuant to Section 90 of the Act which reads as follows:

90. (1) The Tribunal may, on application by an interested person, terminate a residential tenancy and make an order for possession of the premises if it is satisfied that the tenant has--

(a) used the premises, or caused or permitted the premises to be used, for an illegal purpose; or

(c) caused or permitted an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of another person who resides in the immediate vicinity of the premises.

(2) If the Tribunal terminates a tenancy and makes an order for possession under this section, the Tribunal must specify the day as from which the orders will operate, being not more than 28 days after the day on which the orders are made.

(b) a person who has been adversely affected by the conduct of the tenant on which the application is based.

In order for the Tribunal to make the serious order of terminating the tenancy, it must be satisfied that the tenant has caused or permitted a nuisance or caused or permitted an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of another person who resides in the immediate vicinity of the premises.

The applicants seem to suggest that the fact that Ms Campbell had not taken out a restraining order and that she seemed to be "with him" on some occasions was such that she was permitting the activity which was the subject of the complaint.

I am satisfied on the tenant's evidence that she is not permitting such action and that this is corroborated to some extent by the fact that the statement of the police officer confirms attendances at the premises have been requested by the occupant of Unit 2 alleging that the person "Roger" was breaking into the premises, threatening or simply loitering outside. It is not for the Tribunal to embark on an enquiry as to what the tenant should or should not do in relation to Mr Roger Hunt being at the premises. I am satisfied on her evidence that Ms Campbell is not permitting Mr Hunt to be there and therefore these are not the grounds upon which I can make an order pursuant to Section 90 of the Act.

Whilst undoubtedly the neighbours find the arguments and incidents unpleasant and are scared, it is Ms Campbell who is the victim in these circumstances.

The Tribunal also notes that the landlords does not support the application and in that context, making an order under this provision gives rise to further issues not the least of which is there is nothing which compels a landlord to enforce an order for possession. The Tribunal can only make an order for termination and possession; and if the landlord does not wish to enforce the order, then that is a matter for him or her. This highlights the difficulty of a third party being able to end a contract between two other people where those people do not wish the contract to come to an end.