��һ�ǿ�����

An Auckland brothel boss is refusing to leave her bordello despite her landlord, a former��Law Society��president, hiring security guards to boot her out.����

One33 in Auckland’s city centre��had once promised party rooms, DJ booths and luxurious rooms with double spas and big-screen TVs for customers keen on spending time with its “sexy ladies”.����

But now the power has been cut to the brothel and its front doors barred shut, with the company owned by landlord and barrister��Tony Bouchier��saying it’s owed $176,993 in unpaid rent and insurance costs.����

One33 director, Aartisha Kumar, denies this, claiming Bouchier reneged on a verbal agreement to waive some payments for the 133 Vincent St tenancy during the��Covid lockdown��and believes he has unfairly pressured her business to leave its lease.��

She now plans to stage a sit-in at the building, despite claiming security guards have been told to stop her using the toilets or have food delivered to her.��

“This is a stand-off now,” she said.��

One33 had been a tenant at the Vincent St building for 13 years, and built its brand name using the street address, said Kumar, who is a director of Moet Investments, the company behind One33.��

The business had been a long-term tenant of De Richaumont Investments, the company set up by building owner Bouchier.��

As an Auckland criminal barrister and former police officer, Bouchier has also served as president of the local Law Society.��

However, the brothel’s business suffered during the Covid lockdowns.��

It calculated it had been unable to access its premises for 210 days during the lockdowns, equating to about $92,000 in total rent.��

It hired law firm LegalVision to write an April 2024 letter to lawyers representing Bouchier’s company saying its tenancy contract contained a clause entitling it to negotiate a fair reduction in the rent due to a state of emergency caused by Covid.��

One33 brothel operator Aartisha Kumar is occupying the premises in a rent row with her landlord.��

LegalVision claimed One33′s team then verbally agreed with Bouchier that the brothel would pay $3000 each month until 50 per cent of the rental arrears had been repaid.��

LegalVision’s letter stated the brothel had subsequently already repaid a “fair” proportion of the unpaid rent from Covid and wouldn’t be paying any more.��

It also rejected a claim by De Richaumont Investments’ lawyers that One33 had failed to insure the building.��

The tenancy contract stated the landlord would at all times keep the building insured, LegalVision said.��

However, Kieran Tohill Law - the firm representing Bouchier’s company - sent a letter back last week rejecting One33′s legal claims.��

It said Bouchier never agreed to a 50 per cent rent reduction.��

It claimed One33 had instead arbitrarily stopped paying rent rather than negotiating in a fair manner.��

Bouchier told media outlet BusinessDesk he had tried to negotiate rent repayments.��

“I’ve got a record of probably about six emails where I have emailed saying, ‘Let’s negotiate this’: No response,” he said.��

De Richaumont Investments’ lawyers also claimed building insurance was the brothel’s responsibility.��

It said the contract had been “clearly” amended in 2012 to state One33 “would pay 100 per cent of the outgoings plus insurance premium currently organised by the tenant”.��

De Richaumont Investments’ lawyers consequently said they would forego $61,311 in unpaid rent and $117,648 in costs related to the building being uninsured since 2020 if One33′s team signed a Deed of Surrender ending the lease.��

If the brothel didn’t agree to surrender the lease, Bouchier’s company reserved the right to pursue the brothel for the unpaid money, the lawyers said.��

Kumar, meanwhile, said her team would be willing to go to arbitration or court to seek damages for what she believed was the unfair cancellation of the lease.��

Knowing that if she stepped foot outside the brothel, she wouldn’t be let back in by security, she now planned to do a protest sit-in.��

She aimed to force Bouchier’s company to get a court order against her, she said.��

In the meantime, she’s having trouble eating, claiming it took the intervention of police on Monday before the security guards allowed food to be delivered into the building.��

“I need the cops to come and say: ‘It’s OK, she has to have food’, and then security can give it to me, which I think is ridiculous,” she said.��