Jimmy, in your first comment above, which I notice you also published in the Herald, you say “The landlord could encourage the tenant to run a case to have their lease revoked through Fair Trading. The landlord could then run his own case to have the owners corporation compensate him.”
In the SMH article you have (properly) corrected this by pointing out the O/C has an obligation to repair the lift and so the landlord cannot seek compensation from the O/C for something they are duty-bound to do.
However, your advice could be (mis)construed as advice to the landlord to procure the tenant to break the lease in order to create an apparent need for compensation. If the landlord tried to run such a case that could be considered to be an abuse of process, even a fraud, and the landlord may saw (in defence) that your column had advised him or her to do that as an available course. Surely you did not mean that?
I think you are right, though, to point out the best course is for the landlord to seek to negotiate a sensible reduction with the tenant and ensure the lift works run to schedule as much as possible.