1. Section 91ZX provides that a rental provider may give a notice to vacate to a renter as follows:

91ZX Repairs

(1) A residential rental provider may give a renter a notice to vacate rented premises if -

(a) the residential rental provider intends to repair, renovate or reconstruct the premises-

(i) in the case of a building owned by a residential rental provider containing 5 or more rented premises, immediately after the last renter vacates; or

(ii) in any other case, immediately after the termination date; and

(b) the residential rental provider has obtained all necessary permits and consents to carry out the work; and

(c) the work cannot be properly carried out unless the renter vacates the rented premises.

(2) The notice must specify a termination date that is not less than 60 days after the date on which the notice is given.

Note

See section 91ZZO regarding requirements for accompanying documentary evidence.

1. Section 91ZZO of the Act sets out what is required for a notice to vacate to be valid as follows:

91ZZO Form of notice to vacate

A notice to vacate given under this Division is not valid unless-

(a) it is in the relevant prescribed form; and

(b) it is addressed to the renter; and

(c) it is signed by the person giving the notice or by that person's agent; and

(d) it specifies the reason or reasons for giving the notice; and

(e) in the case of a notice to vacate given under section 91ZW, 91ZX, 91ZY, 91ZZ, 91ZZA, 91ZZB or 91ZZC, it is accompanied by documentary evidence, as approved by the Director from time to time, which supports the reason for giving the notice; and

Note

See section 486A

(f) it specifies the termination date which is the date by which compliance is required.

1. The Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria ('the Director') may approve the documents that support the reasons for giving any notice to vacate, including section 91ZX, and must publish these in both the Government Gazette and on the Consumer Affairs Victoria ('CAV') website.[5]
2. According to the relevant gazette[6] and the CAV website, the documentary evidence approved by the Director for the purposes of sections 91ZZO(e) and 91ZX of the Act is as follows:

• Photographic proof that repairs are required; and
• Contract with, or quotation from, a suitably qualified tradesperson for carrying out planned repairs stating:

1. the nature of the repairs required, 2. the reasons why the premises need to be vacated by the renter in order to carry out the repairs, and 3. an estimate of the length of time it will take to complete the repairs.

1. A notice to vacate is not valid unless it meets all of the requirements of section 91ZZO (a) to (f). The Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction or power to grant a possession order where a notice to vacate fails to do so and is not valid. In addition, the Tribunal cannot amend the notice to vacate after it was given, including at a hearing of a possession order application, to confer such jurisdiction upon itself.[7]
2. The decisions in Lazar v Zhang[8] and Raymond v Empire Street Corporation Pty Ltd[9] both considered in detail the documentary requirements set out in the relevant gazette notice for the purpose of giving a valid notice to vacate under section 91ZX of the Act.
3. In Lazar v Zhang[10] a notice to vacate had been given under section 91ZX on the basis of renovations that involved the demolition of a bedroom wall to create a bigger bedroom and small study space. The notice was accompanied by a quote setting out the scope of works to be completed, a signed affidavit by the relevant tradesperson (a carpenter) and the rental provider, photographs of the relevant bedroom wall, and a copy of the floorplan for the rental premises. Notably, the affidavit set out the reasons why the renter was required to vacate for the works to be undertaken and why the renovation was necessary because of the rental provider's plans to ultimately move into the rented premises.[11] The Tribunal found that the works were not repairs, but rather in the nature of renovations because there was no suggestion that the relevant bedroom wall was not in good repair or required maintenance.[12] As a result, the Tribunal found:
   1. It is unnecessary for me to determine whether the documents accompanying the NTV expressly meet the requirements of the Director and provide all the information necessary as the works to be carried out to the rented premises are not repairs. There was no need for the Rental Provider to provide these sorts of documents.
   2. What was required however was the Director approved document for a renovation which was a building permit.
   3. The publication of the Director approved documents to accompany a notice to vacate for renovations, in the Gazette and the CAV website, does not provide any conditions on the circumstances under which a building permit has to accompany the documents, but says that one must be attached.
   4. It is a mandatory requirement under section 91ZZO(e) of the RT Act that for a notice to vacate for renovation to be valid, it must be accompanied by a building permit.
   5. The Director could have repeated the words in section 91ZX of the RT Act and said that the provision of the permit is conditional on one being necessary before works can be undertaken. They did not.
   6. As the NTV is not accompanied by the mandatory documents approved by the Director, being a building permit for renovations, it is invalid and cannot support an application for possession.

1. In Raymond v Empire Street Corporation Pty Ltd[13] a notice to vacate was given under section 91ZX on the basis that the rental provider wanted to renovate. It also set out a list of items that needed to be fixed including bathroom tiling repairs, an issue with the toilet plumbing, the flooring, a complete remake of the kitchen and the painting of the whole of the rented premises.[14] A quote for renovations in respect of these items accompanied the notice to vacate.[15] The Tribunal considered the decision in Lazar v Zhang[16] with approval and stated:
   1. Where repairs are necessary and of such nature and extent as to warrant the premises being vacated, a rental provider may rely on either of the options outlined above for providing documentary evidence so as to comply with their obligation to maintain the premises in a good state of repair.
   2. Following the reasoning in Lazar, where there are proposed works in the nature of renovations, the rental provider may only rely on the second of the options outlined above for providing documentary evidence and must ensure a building permit accompanies a notice to vacate. This interpretation would suggest that renovation works which lack a reparative element, and which do not require a building permit but are nonetheless so significant as to require that the premises be vacated, may not suffice to ground a valid notice to vacate.
   3. In some circumstances, works might be categorised as both repairs and renovations, as is arguable in this case. Where there is any doubt - irrespective of the labelling - the Tribunal will need to be satisfied as to whether the works represent renovations, or repairs required to bring the premises to the necessary standards.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that if the intended works were in the nature of repairs, the notice to vacate was not valid because it had not been accompanied by photographic evidence as required by the Director in the relevant gazette. Correspondingly, the Tribunal held that if the intended works were considered renovations, the notice to vacate was not valid because it was not accompanied by a building permit. As a result, the Tribunal found that the notice to vacate was not valid because it was not accompanied by the documentary evidence approved by the Director for the purposes of section 91ZZO(e) of the Act.[17]

1. Given that I was satisfied that the decisions in Lazar v Zhang[18] and Raymond v Empire Street Corporation Pty Ltd[19] set out the relevant principles to be applied in determining the validity of a notice to vacate given under section 91ZX of the Act, I applied them to the notice to vacate issued by the rental provider to the renter on 30 June 2025.

THE VALIDITY OF THE CURRENT NOTICE TO VACATE ISSUED ON 30 JUNE 2025

1. It is not in dispute that the rental provider gave the renter a notice to vacate under section 91ZX of the Act by registered post on 30 June 2025.[20] The notice to vacate was in the relevant prescribed form, addressed to the renter, signed by the rental provider's agent, specified section 91ZX as the reason for giving the notice and also specified the termination date by which compliance was required as 6 September 2025. As such, the notice to vacate met the requirements of sections 91ZZO(a) to (d) and (f) of the Act. The issue before me was whether the requirements of section 91ZZO(e) were met in terms of the documentary evidence that accompanied the notice to vacate.
2. The notice to vacate stated that the reason for giving it to the renter was because:

The bathroom flooded the unit below and needs to be renovated. The owner requires the renter to move out so these works can be carried out within the apartment. Full bathroom will be renovated and as there is only 1 bathroom the renter can not [sic] stay in the property.

The quotation dated 6 May 2025 from the Esteem Group that accompanied the notice to vacate referred to renovation works at the investment property. This quotation set out the details of the works as a bathroom renovation that involved the removal of all tiles, fixtures and fittings (apart from the bath) and replacement of these with new fixtures and fittings. It also stated that the approximate time to 'complete the renovation works is 8 - 10 weeks' (Tribunal emphasis).

1. At the hearing I asked the agent to confirm the nature of the work intended at the rented premises and she responded that it was for a bathroom renovation. She also gave evidence that the rental provider had not obtained a building permit. Accordingly, the agent did not dispute that the notice to vacate was not accompanied by a building permit.
2. In terms of the validity of the notice to vacate, the agent submitted that the photographs and building quotation that accompanied the notice to vacate met the requirements of the relevant gazette. I observed that all of the evidence before me, including the agent's oral evidence, was that the intended works were in the nature of renovations, not repairs. Notably, the quotation that accompanied the notice to vacate referred to the removal of, and replacement with new, fixtures and fittings (apart from the bath) and did not refer to any particular items that required maintenance or repair. It also set out the time required for the completion of the renovation works rather than any repairs.
3. In response to the findings in Lazar v Zhang[21] and Raymond v Empire Street Corporation Pty Ltd[22] the agent stated that her agency had been successful in other section 91ZX possession order applications for renovation works without providing a building permit. She also submitted that she believed that there were other Tribunal decisions that supported this view. Although I noted that the Tribunal is not bound by the decisions of other Tribunal members,[23] I provided the agent with an opportunity during the hearing to refer me to any decision on the Austlii website[24] or elsewhere that supported her arguments in this regard. She was unable to do so.
4. Accordingly, I was satisfied on the evidence that the intended works were in the nature of renovations, not repairs. As such, the notice to vacate given to the renter on 30 June 2025 had to be accompanied by a building permit. I found that, as a building permit did not accompany the notice to vacate when it was given to the renter on this date, the notice to vacate did not meet the requirements of section 91ZZO(e) and was not valid or effective.
5. In accordance with these findings, I therefore struck out the rental provider's application for a possession order under section 91ZX of the Act.

[2] Tribunal records indicate a notice of hearing was sent to the renter on 14 August 2025.

[3] Lazar v Zhang (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 589.

[4] Raymond v Empire Street Corporation Pty Ltd (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 932.

[6] Victoria Government Gazette No. S 142, 25 March 2021.

[7] Smith v Director of Housing [2005] VSC 46, [20]-[24].

[8] Lazar v Zhang (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 589.

[9] Raymond v Empire Street Corporation Pty Ltd (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 932.

[10] Lazar v Zhang (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 589.

[13] Raymond v Empire Street Corporation Pty Ltd (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 932.

[16] Lazar v Zhang (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 589.

[17] Raymond v Empire Street Corporation Pty Ltd (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 932 at [29]- [33].

[18] Lazar v Zhang (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 589.

[19] Raymond v Empire Street Corporation Pty Ltd (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 932.

[20] A registered post receipt dated 30 June 2025 was submitted to the Tribunal to confirming this.

[21] Lazar v Zhang (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 589.

[22] Raymond v Empire Street Corporation Pty Ltd (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 932.

[23] See Smith FM in Pasula v Minister for Immigration and Anor [2010] FMCA 219 at [31].

[24] See the Australasian Legal Information Institute website at https://www.austlii.edu.au/ .