The Habitable Room Principle: Limiting Rent-Pressure Zone Exemptions to Compliant Living Spaces

Introduction

Doran v Residential Tenancies Board [2025] IEHC 290 is a High Court decision delivered by Mr. Justice Garrett Simons on 22 May 2025. The appeal arose from a Tenancy Tribunal determination refusing a rent-review notice served by landlord Joseph Doran in a designated Rent Pressure Zone. At issue was the meaning of “a permanent increase in the number of rooms in the dwelling” under section 19(5A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (RTA), and specifically whether a previously non-compliant partitioned area—used by tenants as a bedroom but falling short of building-regulation and fire-safety standards—could count as an existing “room” such that subsequent compliance works amounted to no increase. The Landlord sought to treat the newly compliant space as a “new” room and thereby trigger an exemption from rent caps and review intervals.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court allowed the appeal in part—holding that:

Statutorily, a “room” must be a partitioned area lawfully available for living or sleeping, compliant with building regulations and the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 2019.
Mere storage spaces or non-compliant areas do not count as “rooms” for the exemption under section 19(5A)(a)(iii) RTA 2004.
Works solely to bring an existing but non-compliant bedroom into statutory compliance do not effect “an increase” in the number of rooms.
No remittal was ordered: even applying the correct test, the evidence (a two-page engineering report) could not support a finding of prior non-compliance.
The Tenancy Tribunal’s decision was set aside, the rent-review notice invalidated, and costs allocated to reflect the partial success of each side.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Fitzgibbon v Law Society [2014] IESC 48; [2015] 1 IR 516 – authority for the scope of appeals on a point of law (paras 127–128).
An Bord Banistíochta v Labour Court [2024] IESC 38 – reaffirmed that appeals on a point of law are not re-hearings (paras 60, 64).
Marwaha v RTB [2016] IEHC 308 – four guiding principles on appeals under section 123 RTA 2004 (para 13).
Web Summit Services Ltd v RTB [2023] IEHC 634 – the “very high bar” for overturning a Tribunal’s findings and concept of curial deference.
Stanberry Investments Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation [2020] IECA 33 – importance of reasoned decisions.
Attorney General v Davis [2018] IESC 27; [2018] 2 IR 357 – defective or no reasoning is an appealable error on a point of law.
O’Sheehan v RTB [2024] IEHC 409 – statutory duty to state adequate reasons.
Governors & Guardians of the Hospital for the Relief of Poor Lying-in Women v Information Commissioner [2011] IESC 26; [2013] 1 IR 1 – points of law must arise in the original hearing.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied established principles of statutory interpretation (Heather Hill Management Co v An Bord Pleanála [2022] IESC 43; Maher v Dublin City Council [2024] IESC 14; Donegal County Council v Quinn [2025] IESC 19). It held that:

One must read “room” and “accommodation” in the context of the RTA’s overarching objective—rent stability in Rent Pressure Zones—tempered by exemptions for substantial tenant benefits.
The exemption at section 19(5A)(a)(iii) is activated only when works produce “a permanent increase in the number of rooms” that enhances legally usable living/sleeping space.
The Oireachtas deliberately excluded building-regulation cross-references for “rooms” but imposed a proviso that works solely to meet prescribed housing standards (section 19(5A)(b)) are not counted. This underscores that only compliant, tenant-benefitting spaces qualify.
A broad definition (self-contained area with walls, ceiling, door, irrespective of use or compliance) leads to absurdities—storage under stairs would count, while conversion of a non-compliant attic would not.
Section 5 of the Interpretation Act 2005 requires construing ambiguous terms to avoid absurdity and to effect legislative intent.

Impact

This precedent clarifies that landlords in Rent Pressure Zones may only rely on genuinely additional, lawfully habitable rooms—meeting building regulations and prescribed standards—to trigger immediate rent reviews outside statutory caps and intervals. It constrains piecemeal rent increases based on sub-standard “improvements” and reinforces tenants’ rights to safe, compliant accommodation. Future cases will require:

Detailed evidence of pre- and post-works compliance.
Rigorously reasoned Tribunal determinations addressing statutory conditions.
Caution by landlords that compliance works cannot be double-counted as beneficial “increases.”

Complex Concepts Simplified

Appeal on a point of law: An appellate review confined to legal errors, not to re-weigh evidence or substitute factual findings.
Rent Pressure Zone (RPZ): Designated areas where rent increases are capped (generally 2% per annum) and reviews may only occur once every 12 months unless exemptions apply.
Section 19(5)/(5A) RTA 2004: Exempts rent reviews from timing and cap rules where landlords make “substantial changes” to accommodation—including permanent increases in room numbers—subject to conditions and provisos.
Building Energy Rating (BER): A scale (A to G) rating a dwelling’s energy efficiency under EU Regulations, improvement of which can also trigger exemptions.

Conclusion

Doran v RTB establishes the “Habitable Room Principle”: only partitioned areas lawfully usable for living or sleeping—compliant with building regulations and statutory rental-housing standards—count as “rooms” for rent-review exemptions. Compliance works on previously non-compliant bedrooms do not increase room numbers. This ruling ensures that rent-pressure protections are lifted only where tenants receive genuine, compliant enhancements to their accommodation.