However, this was not the case in our case. On the contrary, already on February 22, 1971, Dr. Eiger informed Ben-Shachar that "we cannot extend the lease for any additional period." One may wonder why it was not stated there that a contract with a new tenant had already been signed (and it is not impossible that the determination of the date of P/2 (which is not registered) is not accurate enough), but in any case it was submitted that H.H. Knopf was about to rent the place to another and that failure to return the leased property on time would cause serious damage to both Knopf and the new tenant. The learned judge of the trial court relates, and rightly so, to another part of the letter P/6, where it is stated:
"D. For each period of delay in the return of the leased property, my clients will demand usage fees, which, according to precedents and custom, will be much higher than the sums that the honorable has paid as rent to date."
The learned president on duty sees this as a threat to Ben Shahar on the part of Knopf, so that he will hurry up to evict the tenant, but Ben Shahar did not heed all this, and on April 21, 1971 - after a long silence without any response to P/6 and the reminder sent to him - he unexpectedly announces that he has no intention of leaving and is not even deterred from raising an empty claim that he is a protected tenant. The president on duty goes on to say (at the end of p. 15):
"Under these circumstances, Knopf had two options, either to file an eviction lawsuit against a planning and manufacturing company, or to accept its continued stay in the leased property and receive rent from it."
Therefore, while relying on the exemption document (P/8), he chose the cheapest and easiest of the two. For our purposes, it is important that it was not Knopf who initiated a new relationship with Ben Shahar, but that it was the latter who decided on his own to act when he was driving.
I will admit that I doubt whether Knopf did not exceed the limit of exemption in this conduct (P/8), but once the appeal against him was canceled, the question is no longer before us.