Clarifying Evidence of “Intent to Sell” for Valid Termination under Section 34(a)(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act

Introduction

In Pszonka v Residential Tenancies Board (Approved) [2025] IEHC 291, the High Court of Ireland, sitting with Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan, addressed the narrow question of law whether a landlord’s notice of termination of a “Part 4” tenancy validly rested on ground 3 of the Table to section 34(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (as amended). Roman Pszonka (the tenant) remained in occupation after a December 30, 2022, notice terminating his tenancy on June 30, 2023, on the basis that the landlord (David Whelan) intended to enter into a sale contract within nine months. The Residential Tenancies Board (“RTB”) adjudicator and, on appeal, its Tribunal found the notice valid and directed the tenant to vacate. Pszonka challenged that decision in the High Court by way of a restricted appeal on points of law under section 123 of the 2004 Act.

Key parties and bodies:

Appellant: Roman Pszonka (Tenant)
Respondent: Residential Tenancies Board
Notice-Party: David Whelan (Landlord)
Court: High Court of Ireland
Date: May 23, 2025

Central issue: Was there sufficient evidence of a bona fide intention, on December 30, 2022, to enter into an enforceable contract for sale within nine months of tenancy termination?

Summary of the Judgment

Ms. Justice Phelan dismissed Pszonka’s appeal, holding that:

The Tribunal correctly applied section 34(a)(3) of the 2004 Act, looking beyond the statutory declaration to the landlord’s contemporaneous evidence of personal/family circumstances, estate-agent engagement, solicitor instructions, pricing discussions and post-notice conduct.
There was ample evidence on the balance of probabilities that on service of the notice the landlord intended to secure a sale contract within nine months.
Procedural and evidential objections (prematurity of referral, hybrid hearing format, misspelling of name, registration lapse) did not vitiate the Tribunal’s decision or amount to errors of law.
The tenant’s counterclaim of breach of the landlord’s duty to allow peaceful occupation was rightly rejected as the evidence of occasional heated visits did not cross threshold of unlawful harassment or breach of statutory duty.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Hennessy v PRTB [2016] IEHC 174: Held that ground 3 requires an intention to bind oneself to a sale contract within the statutory period; evidence must support more than general wish to sell.
Gunn v RTB [2020] IEHC 635: Emphasised the need for proof of specific intention contemporaneous with notice; absence of such evidence rendered the Tribunal’s decision unsustainable.
Stulpinaite v RTB [2022] IEHC 263: Clarified that statutory declarations carry some evidential weight but are “not strong evidence”; post-notice steps may confirm intent.
Kelly v RTB [2024] IEHC 730: Under the nine-month regime (amended by the 2019 Act), courts should give “practical effect” to landlords’ rights to sell without imposing unrealistic deadlines; statutory declarations plus corroborating conduct suffice.
Canty v Residential Tenancies Board [2007] IEHC 243: A landlord’s evidential burden on intent is a matter for the Tribunal’s fact-finding, not a Court’s merits review.
Deely v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 91: Summarises the scope of appeals on points of law: confined to no-evidence findings, unreasonable inferences, misinterpretation of documents, or errors of law.

Legal Reasoning

Statutory Framework:

Section 34(a)(3) of the 2004 Act (as amended) permits termination of a Part 4 tenancy where the landlord “intends, within nine months after termination … to enter into an enforceable agreement” for sale, provided a valid notice and accompanying statutory declaration under s. 35.
Notice must comply with s. 62 (form, service, particulars) and be served on the RTB under s. 39A.
Disputes over validity of termination must be referred under Part 6; adjudication to Tribunal; appeal on point of law limited by Deely principles.

Application to Facts:

Notice dated December 30, 2022, explicitly invoked ground 3 and was accompanied by a statutory declaration.
Landlord’s evidence included family bereavement, wife’s illness, CGT liability planning, estate-agent advice that vacant possession was required, solicitor involvement, pricing discussions—and a record of post-notice attempts to inspect, market and erect a “for sale” sign.
The Tribunal found that on the balance of probabilities the requisite intention existed when notice was served; the statutory declaration formed part—but not the sum total—of the evidence.
The Court applied Deely v Information Commissioner to confine its review: no‐evidence, perverse‐inference or error‐of‐law grounds were absent.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision:

Affirms that under the nine-month regime, landlords need not have a fully executed sale contract at notice date; evidence of realistic, bona fide intent (estate-agent engagement, personal circumstances, pricing steps) suffices.
Underscores the limited scope of High Court appeals on points of law (Deely test) from RTB Tribunals: merits challenges will fail absent legal error or unreasonable fact‐finding.
Clarifies that procedural objections (prematurity, remote hearing format, minor clerical errors) must show unfairness or legal invalidity to succeed.
Guides tenants and landlords on the evidential approach to termination notices under section 34(a)(3)—encouraging detailed contemporaneous records if relying on or challenging intent to sell.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Part 4 Tenancy: A residential tenancy of six months or more, granting the tenant statutory security of tenure unless validly terminated on specified grounds.
Ground 3 (Sale Ground): Permits termination where the landlord intends to enter into a binding sales contract within nine months post‐termination; not simply a desire to sell.
Statutory Declaration: A sworn statement by the landlord of intent—carries some weight but is one piece of the evidential puzzle.
RTB Adjudication & Tribunal: Disputes referred to the RTB are first heard by an Adjudicator; appeal to a three‐member Tribunal; further appeal to the High Court on points of law only.
Deely Scope of Appeal: A High Court appeal on point of law cannot re-weigh facts—only intervene for no‐evidence findings, irrational inferences, misinterpretation of documents, or pure legal errors.

Conclusion

Pszonka v Residential Tenancies Board cements the evidential approach to termination notices under section 34(a)(3). A landlord may validly terminate a Part 4 tenancy on the sale ground if, at notice date, credible evidence supports a genuine intention to bind to a sale contract within nine months—even if the contract is not yet signed. The decision reinforces the narrow ambit of appeals on points of law from RTB Tribunals and signals to practitioners the importance of contemporaneous documentation of intention and post-notice marketing steps when relying on or challenging sales-ground terminations.