Video: Mob chants 'Let's start a riot'

First up, there is no Tenancy act.
There is the "Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992" which deals with state housing, and there is the "Residential Tenancies Act 1986" which, presumably is what you refer to here as it is the act that primarily deals with the relationship between landlords and tenants in private dwellings.

The "Residential Tenancies Act 1986" places no limits on what can be included in an agreement - beyond perhaps thos implied by the Human Rights Act 1993 and what it has to say about discrimination, beyond the minimum requirements for certain information to be required.

However.
s38 deals with quiet enjoyment, and reasonable peace, but I suspect that you would be hard pressed to argue that some of this behaviour qualifies as using the section in reasonable peace, or calls under the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

s40 outlines the tenants responsibilities, and specifically s40(2)(b) has this to say:
"The tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose; or"
And s40(2)(c) has this to say:
"The tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord's other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood."
s40 and s41 both, essentially, also place the responsibility for the actions of the guests of tenants squarely on the shoulders of tenants.

So the long and the short of it is that, arguably, the legislative mechanisms are already in place for a land lord to evict students from a rental property for raucous parties, however I have no idea if it has been tested in court or not.

Disclaimer:
I am not a lawyer, nor have I studied the act in depth, this is my opinion based on having read the relevant sections, but not neccessarily having studied the act in any great depth.

"How about some landlords in the area enacting clauses in the tenancy agreements they have with students that say 'no parties are to be held on the property'". I'm certainly no expert but I have a feeling that may be a breach of the tenancy act unless they're disturbing the neighbours, and to be honest their neighbours are probably doing the exact same thing. So a no-goer with that suggestion. And let it be noted, it's not a riot until the riot police show up. I was in attendance for most of the night and the police and fire department were walking, unobstructed, through the crowed for the majority of the night. Things only got out of hand after the arrival of the riot police. Coincidence? I think not.

This is not Dunedin. It shows a lack of dicipline. Perhaps a few clips over their ears as kids were needed.
This has been reported in Melbourne in Australia as was the Toga party. This is not the way to attract people to Dunedin.

This institution isn't a high school. These people are young adults and should be held responsible for their own behaviour, the university has no management of their daily lives, or shouldn't have to deal with this.
I'm a university student myself, and I spent the weekend quietly hanging out with friends far from the Undie 500 scene. If there's one mentality that frustrates me here it's the approach many residents and mayor Peter Chin have to students. Many act like we are all irresponsible rioters who are the bane of Dunedin's otherwise peaceful existence.
"Non-student residents" are tired of this behaviour, well so are many of the student population. The idea we're all drunken morons gets those of us who are genuinely working hard for their education nowhere.

How is it the University's fault, they don't run or promote this event and have no power to stop it. Local business that profit from the event should possibly have to help pay for the cleanup, with it being the biggest night(s) of the year for some. The bylaw for the alcohol ban has a large fine that can go with it and should be used to help pay for the costs. There is really no way to stop this happening every year unless police are given and use the power to stop it before it starts. Alot of what allows this to happen is that the said "rioters" feel security in that they can just run into their houses when the police come.

Yes Hedsta this is pathetic. But the individuals involved should be held to account, not the University.

Please keep two facts in mind:

Firstly, it is not solely University students involved. A lot of non-students come to the area in the hope of trouble. Around ten percent of the arrests were non-students. I even saw a high-school van dropping people off (John McGlashan may be interested in asking whoever was using their van on Saturday night why it was dropping people off).
So while many University students are indeed very much involved, they are not solely to blame.

Secondly, this is only a handful of the city's students involved - so why should the rest pay for the costs of an unofficial event most of them probably don't even support?
That is as illogical as suggesting that the DCC should pay for drunken damage to the Christchurch stadium simply because the people who did it come from Dunedin.

The University made to cover costs?
The offenders involved in the riot should pay whatever clean-up costs, bill the addresses on Castle St.
How about some landlords in the area enacting clauses in the tenancy agreements they have with students that say 'no parties are to be held on the property'. Kick them out and hit them in the pocket. Those flats are the ones that had people inciting the behaviour over the weekend. The landlords and property managers are just too soft and want the money. They know it would not be hard to fill the flats again.
A lack of management of students by the University? The current strategy not working?
Parts of the University have worked damn hard over the last few years, there has been a massive reduction in anti-social behaviour in North Dunedin, ask anyone. Unfortunately their are idiots that can't handle their booze, those same idiots ruin it for the other 99% of the student population who know how to drink and not throw bottles, respect themselves, their mates and others, and have a good time.

This is pathetic. The University should be made to cover the costs of the police, time wasted by the courts and the street clean up afterwards. Sending out letters asking students to behave is too passive...street wardens clearly haven't worked either. The University needs to take responsibility for its students and billing the University for the costs incurred to the city (rate payers pay for the Police, courts, street cleaning etc) will make the University sit up and take notice; the students and the University get away with it every time. Local alcohol outlets should also be in the frame as most of those involved in these events are normally intoxicated. Those presecuted and dealt with by the courts should be asked to leave the University. Non student residents in this part of the city are sick and tired of this type of behaviour and the lack of management of students by the University...the current strategy for dealing with type of behaviour clearly isn't working.