Family file (Nazareth) 59099-02-24 A.Z. V. M.Z.

Proceedings:

1. Two lawsuits are pending before the court for a decision. The first, the plaintiff's claim in family file file 38291-07-23, to instruct the defendant to vacate and remove his hand from a residential apartment, which was delivered by the plaintiff for the use of the defendant and his wife, and the second, the plaintiff's claim in family file file 59099-02-24, to charge the defendant proper usage fees for the use made of the apartment and to oblige him to pay electricity bills.

A brief factual background:

2. The plaintiff is the defendant's father.
3. The plaintiff is the registered owner of a plot *** in the *** block and of plots *** and *** in the *** block of the village lands *** (hereinafter: the "land"), as appears from the registration documents attached to the claim. On the plaintiff's share of the land there is a building consisting of 4 apartments, in one apartment the plaintiff, his wife and daughter live, in another apartment two of the plaintiff's sisters, on the floor above the apartment where the sisters live the defendant and his family (hereinafter: "the apartment"), and in another apartment another son of the plaintiff lives.
4. The defendant and his family have been living in the apartment since at least 1995, the year the defendant married his wife. The defendant and his family live in the apartment to this day without payment of usage fees and/or rent.  In addition, the use of the apartment by the defendant and his family members was not regulated by a written agreement or a formal agreement of any other type, and the parties do not disagree on these facts.
5. A dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendant, and following the dispute, the plaintiff petitioned in the eviction claim to remove the defendant from the apartment. In his claim for usage fees, the plaintiff petitions to oblige the defendant to pay proper usage fees, for the use made by the defendant and his family in the apartment, as well as for the payment of electricity bills that he claims were paid by him and which the defendant was supposed to pay for the electricity consumption he made in the apartment.
6. Following the outbreak of the dispute, the plaintiff contacted the defendant and other children in a letter dated May 21, 2023, through an attorney, informing them that he intended to file an eviction claim from the apartments, due to the treatment he and his wife were receiving. It should be noted that the warning letter states that a copy of the claim for eviction that was prepared was attached to the warning letter.  Since the parties were unable to reach an agreement in the dispute, the plaintiff filed his claim against the defendant only, in which he petitions to order his removal from the apartment, and in the additional lawsuit filed at a later stage, he petitions to obligate the defendant to pay proper usage fees from the date the claim was filed until the eviction.  In addition, in a claim for usage fees, the plaintiff seeks to obligate the defendant to pay the electricity bills he paid, bills that the defendant was supposed to pay for the electricity consumption in the apartment.
7. The two claims were heard together and in the absence of agreements, the parties sought to order the submission of affidavits of the main witness and the determination of the two files for evidence. The plaintiff submitted an affidavit of primary testimony on his behalf and the defendant submitted an affidavit of primary testimony on his behalf as well as an affidavit of primary testimony on behalf of his wife.  An evidentiary hearing was held in both claims on December 5, 2024, in which the plaintiff, the defendant and the defendant's wife were interrogated.  The parties submitted written summaries on their behalf, and now the time has come to decide on both claiMs.

The plaintiff's arguments in both claims:

8. The plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the land as well as the apartment, and that he allowed the defendant to live in an apartment located above the apartment where the sisters live, after the defendant married his wife. The plaintiff claims that he gave his defendant son permission to live in the apartment.  The plaintiff claims that he built all the apartments, including the apartment in which the defendant lives, in the late 1960s/early 1970s.  The plaintiff adds that he also allowed more children to live in the apartments he built, out of a desire to make it easier for them and to use them in the future.
9. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The plaintiff claims that the defendant's treatment of him and his wife is disgraceful. The plaintiff adds that he gave the defendant permission to live in the apartment, thinking that this would help his son, so that his defendant son would also help him at the end of his life.  The plaintiff claims that the defendant behaved disrespectfully towards him, ignored his needs and those of his wife, and refrained from helping them.  The plaintiff argues that as long as they did not need the help of the defendant and his wife, the relationship with the defendant and his wife was reasonable.

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)

10. The plaintiff claims that for the past 14 years, his wife has become a nurse and she needs help to this day. According to him, from the moment his wife became a caregiver, the defendant, his wife and children began to treat him and his wife as a burden.  The plaintiff adds that the defendant does not come to help him and take care of his nursing mother, and that the defendant and his family members rarely come to visit the mother and do not pay attention to her and her needs.  The plaintiff claims that the defendant behaves in a disrespectful and humiliating manner towards him, ignores his mother's needs and the assistance he needs to care for her, and the defendant rarely speaks to him, and in this situation the plaintiff is not interested in continuing to let the defendant live in an apartment that belongs to him and is owned by him.
11. The plaintiff claims that he gave the defendant permission to use the apartment and that the apartment was not given to him as a gift, as the defendant claiMs. The plaintiff argues that an undertaking to give a gift in real estate is subject to a dual written requirement, both by virtue of section 8 of the Land Law, 5729-1969 , and by virtue of section 5(a) of the Gift Law, 5728-1968 . The plaintiff argues that the two written requirements are important and substantial, and they are not fulfilled in the case before the court.
12. The plaintiff argues that even if it is proven, even at the outset, that the defendant received land and an apartment as a gift, a gift in real estate ends, and cannot be revoked, only when its registration is completed in the land registry. The plaintiff argues that since the undertaking to give a gift has not been registered, the plaintiff, who is the giver of the gift, can still cancel it in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Gift Law.
13. The plaintiff denies the defendant's claim that he did not pay him for the defendant's work with him, and the salary was in exchange for receiving the apartment. The plaintiff claims that the defendant received a salary, but there were no pay slips.  The plaintiff claims that the defendant worked with him when he was single and for a period of 4 years.
14. Regarding the renovations in the apartment, the plaintiff claims that the defendant did not invest a single shekel in the apartment, and that the apartment was built with his own money. The plaintiff claims that the defendant did not present a single receipt that he renovated the apartment, did not bring professionals to testify about the work and renovations that were made, and did not present any evidence that could support his version regarding the investments he had in the apartment.
15. The plaintiff adds that the defendant did not even take care to make repairs and defects from the use he made of the apartment. With regard to the defendant's guarantee, the plaintiff does not deny the fact that the defendant signed as a guarantor for the company he owned, but claims that the defendant did not pay anything in accordance with the guarantee.  The plaintiff also denies the defendant's claim that he paid debts on his behalf.
16. The plaintiff claims that all the apartments have a common electricity clock and that the electricity bill comes in the plaintiff's name. The plaintiff adds that each of the 3 apartments, apart from his apartment, has an internal electricity meter and throughout the years each party has paid the electricity bill according to its consumption according to the meter in the internal clock.
17. The plaintiff claims that since October 22, the defendant has stopped paying the electricity bill, and all his requests to him to pay the electricity bills have not been answered. The plaintiff notes that he, his wife and daughter, who suffer from mental illness, live on National Insurance Institute allowances, and despite this, he paid the defendant's electricity bills.  The plaintiff seeks to oblige the defendant to pay him for the electricity bills, with the plaintiff stating 3 different amounts.
18. According to the plaintiff, and after a letter was sent to the defendant with a copy of the letter of claim for eviction, the defendant joined hands with another brother and caused irreparable damage to another brother, with whom the plaintiff had good relations, with the aim of harming the plaintiff and intimidating him. The plaintiff claims that the defendant and the other brother caused the arrest of the brother, who is on good terms with him.
19. The plaintiff claims that in or about September 22, the defendant paid part of the electricity bills, and since October 2022 the defendant stopped paying the electricity bills, and from the moment the defendant stopped paying the electricity bills, he canceled his consent to the defendant living in the apartment he owned. The plaintiff adds that since then the defendant has stopped paying the electricity bills and bears the electricity payment for the apartment.
20. The plaintiff refers in his claim for usage fees to the incident that took place on February 13, 2024, and claims that on that day the defendant came to him and started shouting, spat at him and demanded that he give him the gun he was holding, a gun that the plaintiff had a license. According to the plaintiff, the defendant told him that he would "show him" in court, and that he would "send people to shoot at him and his house." The plaintiff claims that this incident caused him damage and he required medical treatment, following which he was hospitalized for two days.
21. The plaintiff petitions in the framework of the claim for usage fees to obligate the defendant to pay him for the electricity bills he paid on his behalf. The plaintiff admits that the defendant paid him the sum of ILS 2,800.  In addition, the plaintiff petitions to obligate the defendant to pay him usage fees for at least 10/22 until the defendant is evicted from the apartment, in accordance with the assessment of an appraiser appointed by the court.  The plaintiff filed his claim for ILS 50,000 for the purposes of fees.

The defendant's arguments in both suits:

22. In the face of the plaintiff's arguments, the defendant argues that the lawsuit should be dismissed out of hand in the absence of a cause of action and in the absence of rivalry, and alternatively, also on its merits. The defendant argues that we are dealing with a lawsuit, which is filed in the absence of good faith, which is fundamentally unfounded, devoid of any factual basis, and expresses a despicable and despicable attempt to intimidate the defendant, deprive him of his rights and enrich himself at his own expense unlawfully, and to remove him from the apartment in which he lived for most of his adult life.  The defendant adds that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and he did not bring a single witness to testify in support of the claims he raised.
23. The defendant claims that the apartment that is the subject of the lawsuit was given to him as a gift and/or that the plaintiff gave him an irrevocable license to live in it, and for an unlimited period and at least for the rest of his life and the lives of his family members. The defendant adds that he worked with the plaintiff in agriculture from an early age, and did not receive any salary from him for his work, but only pocket money.  The defendant claims that the plaintiff used to tell him that he was giving him the apartment, and therefore the defendant must return to him the money he invested in the construction of the apartment.  The defendant claims that he acted in accordance with his father's request, continued to work with him and did not receive pay for his work.
24. The defendant claims that the manner in which the plaintiff transferred the apartment to him reflects an ancient custom whereby fathers let their children live in an apartment that is registered in the name of the parent or parents. According to the defendant, there is also a tension between the formal law and the customs of Arab society, but according to him, we are dealing with a right that is a right of ownership despite the absence of written documents and registration in the registry, and alternatively, we are dealing with the right of irrevocable use.  The defendant claims that in the case before the court, the transfer of the apartment to him was in exchange for the wages that were not paid to him for his work with the plaintiff, as well as for the amount of the debt paid by the defendant to cover the plaintiff's debts to the tax authorities.
25. The defendant further argues that another way to overcome the written requirement is by virtue of the principle of good faith, since case law has determined that it is possible to recognize the right of ownership even without the written requirement. According to him, it is possible to recognize the existence of an undertaking to make a real estate transaction due to the "cry of fairness" that arises from the circumstances of the case as determined in case law.
26. The defendant claims that in 1995 he got married, lived in the apartment even when he was single, and has been living in the apartment for about 40 years. The defendant claims that shortly after his wedding, he renovated the apartment, including demolishing an interior wall, painting the walls, doing plaster work, assembling interior doors and a new main door, installing new aluminum windows, assembling kitchen cabinets, and more.  The defendant claims that even after the wedding, he closed a stairwell and made an addition to the 40 square meter apartment, making it an integral part of the apartment.  The defendant estimates the value of his investment in the apartment at a total of ILS 250,000.
27. It should be noted that the defendant submitted an opinion on behalf of an appraiser, who made an estimate of the renovations and work done in the apartment. In its decision of December 5, 2024, the court ordered that the opinion be removed from the file, since it was submitted in contravention of the provisions of the Regulations and without obtaining the court's approval to submit it.  It should also be noted that after the opinion was removed from the file, no request was submitted on behalf of the defendant to submit an opinion on his behalf regarding the investments and improvements made to the apartment.
28. The defendant claims that his father, the plaintiff, got into trouble with the tax authorities and needed funds to repay his debts. The defendant claims that the plaintiff approached him and asked him to help him, in exchange for giving him the apartment as a gift.  The defendant claims that he acceded to the request of his father, the plaintiff, withdrew his severance money and his wife's pension, and paid his debts to the tax authorities instead of his father.  The defendant claims that the amount of debt he paid for the plaintiff was the sum of ILS 60,000.
29. The defendant claims that after the marriage of his brother S. And his residence above the apartment in which he lives, friction between the family and brother S.  He began to incite the plaintiff against him.  According to the defendant, brother S.  He has considerable control and influence over the plaintiff and he is trying to appropriate all of his father's assets for himself.  The defendant adds that since S.  Living in the apartment, the plaintiff's father's attitude has changed, and he treats him badly, and kicks him out of the house every time he comes to visit.  The defendant mentions an incident in which the brother S.  He threatened another brother of the parties with a gun.
30. The defendant denies the plaintiff's claims that he behaved disgracefully toward him and his mother, on the contrary, the defendant claims that he and his wife behaved in a respectful manner to the plaintiff and his mother, helped them, and in support of his claims, his wife also testified in this matter. The defendant claims that the plaintiff did not take care to bring any witness to support his claims regarding the disgraceful behavior towards him and his mother, even though he could have brought both his wife and his children, who are 13 in number, besides him.
31. The defendant asks the court to order the dismissal of the lawsuit, since its sole purpose is to throw him and his family out of the apartment through no fault of their own. The defendant reiterates that he received the apartment as a gift and/or received non-residential permission to live in it for an indefinite period, or at least for the rest of his life and the lives of his family members.  The defendant adds that he relied on the permission given to him, held the apartment for 40 years, and the plaintiff cannot revoke the permission granted.
32. Alternatively, the defendant argues that if the court orders his removal from the apartment, the plaintiff must provide him with appropriate alternative housing in accordance with the undertaking and/or in light of the plaintiff's representations. Alternatively, the defendant argues that the plaintiff, in accordance with the provisions of the law and/or case law, and as a condition for his eviction from the apartment, must compensate him with the value of the betterment of the apartment, including compensation for the expenses and investments that the defendant has invested in the apartment over the years.
33. With regard to the claim for usage fees and payment of electricity expenses, the defendant repeats the claims raised in the statement of defense filed in the eviction claim. The defendant claims that the apartment was given to him as a gift and/or that he was given permission other than the apartment to live in the apartment, and therefore he should not be evicted from the apartment, and accordingly he should not be obligated to pay usage fees.  The defendant adds that the sum of the claim in the amount of ILS 50,000 was claimed in vain and without any details.  Alternatively, the defendant argues that the claim for usage fees should be waited until the decision on the claim for eviction and disposal.
34. As to the defendant's charge for the electricity bills, the defendant argues that this remedy should be rejected, since the defendant is not obligated to pay electricity, and even worse on March 15, 2024, the plaintiff disconnected the defendant from electricity without any warning, and since then the defendant and his family have been consuming electricity from the neighbors.
35. The defendant claims that he paid for the electricity according to the internal clock in his apartment. The defendant claims that during 2022, the plaintiff began to raise claims according to which the sums paid by the defendant for electricity consumption were lower than his consumption, and that he had to pay a quarter of the electricity bills.  The defendant claims that he refused the plaintiff's request, since he used to pay according to the meter in his apartment and there was no reason for him to pay a quarter of the electricity bill.
36. The defendant claims that at a certain point the plaintiff refused to receive from the defendant his share of the electricity according to the meter reading in the defendant's apartment and claimed that he was forging the meter and again insisted that he pay a quarter of the electricity bill. The defendant adds that his father is the plaintiff and his brother S.  They renovated the house and added construction and the electricity consumption was increased, and there was no justification for the defendant to pay a quarter of the electricity consumption.  The defendant claims that in the month of December 2023 he paid a global sum of ILS 2,800 which covered his electricity consumption until the end of October 23.  Alternatively, the defendant argues that if the court obliges him to pay the electricity bill, at most he should be charged in the sum of ILS 5,465.
37. The defendant petitions to dismiss the two claims and argues that the plaintiff has no right to evict him from the apartment and that there is no reason to obligate him to pay proper usage fees and electricity bills.

The questions that require the court to decide:

38. I will note that this court is required to deal very frequently with eviction and eviction claims between a father and his son, especially in the Arab sector, and in the vast majority of cases it grants these claims in the affirmative. Only in very exceptional cases is the court required to recognize the right to non-permanent use of the land, however, as noted, these are very exceptional and exceptional cases.
39. The court has three questions to decide. The first question that the court must decide is the question of the scope of the use permission granted by the plaintiff to the defendant? The second question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive usage fees from the defendant for the use made by the defendant and his family of the apartment, and whether he can be obligated to pay the electricity bills.  And the third question, can the plaintiff be obligated to pay the defendant compensation for the investments he made in the apartment?

The right to use and possess an apartment - the normative framework:

40. In this situation, in which the plaintiff is the owner of the land and accordingly also the building on it, including the apartment, the question of permission to use the apartment must be addressed.
41. What is the defendant's right, then? The defendant's right is a right of use that was given orally and was not anchored in any written document. As far as the apartment is concerned, the licensee is usually entitled, in this case, the plaintiff to withdraw from the authority, as opposed to a lease, for example, whose terms are set out in the contract.  Insofar as the court determines that we are dealing with a non-apartment authority, it will not be possible to order the removal of the defendant from the apartment.
42. A "mere authority" is granted as a gesture of goodwill that has no intention of creating a contractual obligation, and the landowner may cancel it at any time. The institution of the real estate authority, which is based on the theory of estoppel, has been absorbed in Israeli law from English law (see: 346/62 Rechter v.  Estate Tax Administration, 17(2) PD 701).  Today, estoppel can be anchored in the form of good faith, which is established in the Contracts Law, 5733-1973 (see: 4928/92 Ezra v.  Tel Mond Local Council, IsrSC 47(5) 94).
43. In their rulings, the courts continued to uphold the institution of the "real estate license" even after the enactment of the Real Estate Law, 5729-1969 (hereinafter: the "Real Estate Law"), despite the fact that this right is not mentioned in it and despite the explicit determination of section 161 of the Real Estate Law, entitled "Denial of Rights in Equity", that "from the beginning of this Law there is no right in real estate except in accordance with the law", and this is based on the doctrine of good faith (see: Civil Appeal 2836/90 Betzer v. Zilevitz, PD 46 (5) 184; Civil Appeal Family Case (Family, Tel Aviv) 20094/97 A.  v.  S.  10 (published in Nevo, August 15, 2004)).
44. An permission granted by a landowner to another, to hold or live in the property may be anchored in a contract and may be granted as a "mere authority", without the intention of creating a contractual obligation and without giving the recipient of the permission any proprietary right towards the landowner.
45. When the authorization granted is a free authorization, it has been ruled more than once that the grantor is entitled to revoke the authorization in the blink of an eye, upon his declaration that he does not wish to continue granting the license (Civil Appeal 126/83 Al-Din Al-Alami v. Al-Khatib, PD 40(1) 397; Civil Appeal 602/84 Ribo v.  Gal, PD 39(3) 693).
46. The rules for the revocation of a license in real estate of all kinds have been subordinated over the years to the principles of justice, the considerations of the reliance of the licensee, and the betterment of the property (see: Civil Appeal 87/62 in Hadich v. Badihi, PD 16(4) 2901; Civil Appeal 346/62 Rechter v.  Estate Tax Administrator, PD 17(2) 701).
47. When there are expectations and reliance on the authority and the owner was aware of this and remained silent, he may lose his right to withdraw the permission, and he will have to respect the expectations of the licensee to continue using the property. Even when no consideration has been paid for the granting of the license, this does not imply that the authority can be revoked in any case, and each and every authority and the terms of its cancellation, the final decision is always circumstantial.  When cancellation is possible, the owner may be obligated to pay compensation to the Bar Authority.
48. Also, when a claim arises regarding the cancellation of a license in real estate and the license holder is requested to remove it, the court must examine the circumstances of the case, whether it would be justified to allow the landowner to revoke the license, and whether there is room to condition the cancellation on conditions.
49. When we are dealing with a "mere permission" that was granted free of charge without any consideration, the permission exists due to the licensee's free will, and is revoked upon the licensor's declaration that he is not interested in continuing to grant the license. A licensee, by virtue of a license to use without consideration, may at any given moment demand the removal of his hand, even if his activity in the property has been going on for a long time (see in this regard: Civil Appeal 96/50 Zinki et al.    Victor et al., IsrSC 5(1) 474, 479; Civil Appeal 50/77 Mizrahi v.  Aflalo, IsrSC 31 (3) 433, 439; Civil Appeal 32/77 Eliasaf Tavolitsky v.  Synagogue and Beit Midrash, IsrSC 31(3) 210, 215-216).
50. In order for an authority to be irrevocable and irrevocable, the explicit consent of the owner of the property is required. The inference of an implicit inalienable authority, and by virtue of the circumstances only, will be done with extreme caution and in rare circumstances (see: Family Appeal (Center) 37005-01-14 Anonymous v.  Anonymous (published in Nevo, December 30, 2014)).

0

51. Moreover, in cases of greater reliance with a long-term stay with the construction of a house and a greater investment, it was ruled that the non-residential property should not be recognized, and that there is room to award monetary compensation to the extent that the investment and improvement in the apartment is proven. It was held that the compensation is limited only in respect of the value of the licensee's investment in the property and its betterment (see: in Tax Appeal 1894/16 Anonymous v.  Anonymous (published in Nevo, May 10, 2017) and Family Case (Nazareth) 27669-01-17 (published in Nevo, April 22, 2018).

From the general to the individual:

52. What is the defendant's right, then? The defendant's right is the right to use the apartment. The licensee may, usually, in this case, the plaintiff withdraw from the authority, as opposed to a lease, for example, the terms of which are set out in the contract.  Contrary to the defendant's claims, I am of the opinion that the defendant was only given permission to live in the property, and today the defendant is in the sense of a licensee in the apartment and has no proprietary rights in the apartment.  The defendant's arguments regarding the receipt of the apartment as a gift and in return I have found to be rejected as will be detailed and explained later in the judgment.
53. In our case, there is no dispute that no agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. There is also no dispute that the defendant did not pay the plaintiff usage fees for the use he and his family made of the apartment.  In this situation, we are dealing with a permission to use that was granted free of charge (see: Civil Appeal 96/50 Zinki et al.    Victor et al., IsrSC 5(1) 474, 479 (1951)).
54. Throughout the course of the lawsuits, the plaintiff repeatedly claimed that he gave the defendant permission to live in the apartment in order to help him and allow him and his wife to live in the apartment after their marriage. This conclusion arises from the plaintiff's testimony that his desire was to allow the defendant's son and his wife to live in an apartment that was also not time-limited.  The permission exists due to the plaintiff's free will and can be revoked at any stage when the plaintiff decides that this is his opinion, that he is not interested in continuing to grant the license to the defendant.  The defendant is entitled to leave without consideration by virtue of a license granted to him by the plaintiff, and therefore he is entitled at any given moment to demand his eviction, even if the defendant has lived in the apartment for many years.
55. The defendant does not have a property right, a rental right, a right of ownership, a lease right in the land from a registered point of view, and there is no dispute that the plaintiff is registered as the owner of the rights in the land and the apartment, and as an owner he is the one who gave the defendant permission to make use of the apartment and he is entitled to cancel it at any time. In such circumstances, the relationship between the owner of the proprietary right in the land , who is the plaintiff , and the recipient of the right of use , who is the defendant, is a relationship of licensees and licensees.
56. In our case, we are dealing with a right of use that the plaintiff granted free of charge without receiving consideration from the defendant, without a time limit or termination, a situation that is common in family relations and in traditional societies such as the Arab sector. It is customary in this sector that the father builds the house and lets the son use and possess the house without any payment.  The right is personal and there is usually no written evidence about it , and this is the case before the court.
57. The plaintiff's agreement to allow the defendant to live was made with explicit oral consent. This is not a written agreement, and in our case there is no written undertaking to transfer the rights in the land/apartment in the name of the defendant in the future.  This is, in fact, the consent and authorization given by the plaintiff to the defendant to make free use of the apartment for residential purposes since 1995, the year of the defendant's marriage, until the outbreak of the dispute.
58. The parties were interrogated at length regarding the plaintiff's claims regarding the disgraceful and inappropriate treatment he received from the defendant and his wife, and the parties' claims in this regard were polarized. I will note and emphasize that even if the plaintiff's claims regarding the disgraceful treatment and lack of assistance on the part of the defendant and his wife to the plaintiff and his wife have not been proven by me, the plaintiff still has the right to request and demand the removal of the defendant from the apartment, as the owner of the right in the land and the apartment, and he has no obligation to prove the reason for his demand for removal.  The case law clearly states that a licensee, by virtue of a license to use without consideration, the grantor of the permission may at any given moment demand the removal of the hand of the recipient of the permission.
59. The defendant's argument that the right can be based on the custom in the Arab sector, whereby parents transfer the land to their children without any registration or written demand, and that this right can be recognized as a legal right, I also found to be rejected. This custom, to which the defendant referres, is well-known and widespread, and illustrates the complex conflict between the custom in the Arab sector and the oral agreements made by virtue of the custom, and Israeli law and the provisions of the law.  At the same time, and as has already been established in case law, the provisions of the law and the law prevail over oral agreements, and even long-standing behavior in the form of using a real estate property or apartment without payment of consideration and committing the custom of owners in the land or in the apartment therein, cannot justify a declaration of ownership rights.
60. And more than necessary, there is a presumption of registration that overrides any other oral claim. In order to contradict the presumption of registration, and in order to meet such a burden, to refute and contradict the presumption of registration, it is not sufficient to prove a use that contradicts ownership, and it is necessary to show clear indications of the real estate transaction (which must be done in writing by virtue of section 8 of the Land Law) or that the ownership is from the beginning of the party who is not registered and claims ownership.
61. The argument that the apartment was given to the defendant as a gift and in exchange for the unpaid wages paid to the defendant for his work with the plaintiff and the payment of the debt, I also found to be rejected. First, the Gift Law states that any undertaking to give a gift must be in writing, which does not exist in the case before me.  Second, it was not proven that the plaintiff promised the defendant that the apartment was in exchange for the rent, and the plaintiff denied this claim in his interrogations, and no evidence and/or proof was brought on behalf of the defendant to support this claim.  His wife, who submitted an affidavit of primary testimony and was interrogated, also did not raise this claim.  Third, and more than necessary, even if we accept the defendant's version regarding the consideration, the wages that the defendant received during the period in which the defendant worked before his marriage, which is a short period and when the defendant was young, does not constitute a real consideration for the value of the land and the apartment.
62. I also found the defendant's claim regarding the payment of a debt of the plaintiff to the tax authorities in exchange for receiving the apartment. First, the defendant, when the burden is placed on him, was unable to prove that he did indeed pay the plaintiff's debts to the tax authorities in the sum of ILS 60,000.  Second, it was not proven by the defendant that the plaintiff promised him the apartment in exchange for the payment of the debt.  Third, the defendant does not specify when he paid the alleged debt.  Fourth, the permission to use the apartment was given to the defendant as early as 1995 and the payment of the debt, insofar as it was, was later, so that it was not properly clarified how the promise to give the apartment as a gift was in exchange for the payment of the debt, which did not exist at all and as a rule at the time the apartment was delivered to the defendant.  Fifth, even the withdrawal of the funds by the defendant's wife from the bank account does not prove that the amount she drew was transferred to the plaintiff's debt account, since no evidence was presented that the withdrawal amounts were transferred to the plaintiff.  Sixth, the sum that was drawn in two installments and on different dates does not correspond to the amount of the debt claimed to have been paid in the amount of ILS 60,000.
63. As to the argument raised by the defendant that the apartment was promised to his wife's parents as a section within the framework of the closure of the marriage, I also found this argument to be rejected. First, this argument was not raised at all in the statement of defense submitted on behalf of the defendant.  Second, the claim was raised only in the framework of the affidavit of the main witness submitted on behalf of the defendant's wife.  Third, the plaintiff denied this mistake in his interrogation and even swore in the mitzva of Hajj (the mitzva of going up to Mecca in Saudi Arabia) that they did not discuss it at all with the parents of the defendant's wife.  Fourth, this claim was also not proven and was argued by the defendant's wife, when it could easily have been presumed by summoning the parents of the defendant's wife to testify in this matter, which the defendant chose not to do.
64. The defendant's argument regarding "the cry of fairness and completion of details by virtue of the duty of good faith", which is based on the precedent that other municipal applications 986/93 Kalmer v. Guy, IsrSC 50(1) 185 (1996)) mentioned in his summaries cannot help him.  It is not possible, on the basis of a poor and weak evidentiary texture , as the defendant raised, to contradict the registry and claim ownership of the property by virtue of the cry of fairness.  The fact that the property is used does not make up for the lack of evidence of the existence of a real estate transaction.

The testimonies:

65. The plaintiff testified that the apartment belonged to him and that he gave the defendant permission to live in it and even testified that he allowed him to live in it temporarily, and testified as follows:

Q:                   Listen, it's not a trivial thing in giving you a piece of paper and that's it, do whatever you want.  You say it's my property.  It's my home