Court Orders Tenant to Pay 40,000 Shekels After Demanding Two Apartments

A Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court recently dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former tenant in a "Pinui-Binui" (evacuation-reconstruction) project in Yehud. The tenant had demanded an additional apartment from the developers beyond the one already promised to him, based on a supplementary agreement he claimed was signed. The tenant initially held a three-room apartment in the project, being developed by Y.R. Achim Ezra and Gemul Yehud, which will ultimately comprise 364 units. His original 2013 agreement guaranteed him a four-room apartment and a bank guarantee of 1.2 million shekels. He alleged that on the same day, a supplement was signed granting him an additional three-room apartment and an 800,000 shekel guarantee.

The development companies argued that the supplementary document was forged. In 2019, the tenant sued Gemul Yehud, and in August 2021, a default judgment was issued against the company, requiring it, among other things, to provide him with a 2 million shekel guarantee. However, in November 2019, while the first lawsuit was still pending, the tenant sold his rights to the new apartment for 700,000 shekels without informing the court. After his enforcement proceedings were rejected, he filed the current lawsuit in 2024.

Presiding Judge rejected the tenant's claim that the first judgment constituted res judicata, noting the tenant failed to present the initial lawsuit and did not report the apartment sale to the court. The judge added that even if res judicata applied, it would be overridden for justice reasons, as the tenant, identified as Yair, effectively sought rights equivalent to three apartments: one he sold and guarantees for two others. Regarding the supplementary agreement, the judge found the tenant failed to prove why a tenant vacating one apartment should receive two, presenting no original documents, handwriting expert opinions, or correspondence.

The judge also raised doubts about whether the tenant was the true initiator of the lawsuit, suggesting external parties might be involved. "The inability of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney together to respond to my proposal strengthens the likelihood that it was not the plaintiff who initiated and managed the proceeding. This plausible possibility has evidentiary significance that detracts from the plaintiff's claim that a supplement to the agreement was also signed. All the more so, these things are true when they are joined by the plaintiff's 'rehearsed' testimony," the judge stated. Consequently, the tenant's claim was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay 20,000 shekels in expenses to each of the two defendants.

Attorney Shi Shemesh, representing Gemul Yehud, commented that the examination of documents and the sequence of events revealed a different picture: the apartment rights had already been sold to a third party, a fact not disclosed to the court in the previous proceeding. Furthermore, the tenant did not prove the supplementary agreement on which his claim for an additional apartment was based. Shemesh advised companies and developers to scrutinize financial demands beyond the amount and document presented, verifying the basis of the claim, its current ownership, and evidential support.