| Tiberias Magistrate’s Court |
| Crim. Crim. 34943-01-26 Critical v. Gadol et al.
Exterior Case: |
| Before | The Honorable Judge, Vice President Efrat Heller
|
|
|
Plaintiff |
Avraham Kriti By Adv. Avi Tal |
|
|
Against
|
||
| Defendants | 1. Great Wonder – Deleted
2. Eliyahu Ferzon By Adv. Eliezer Rodin |
|
Judgment
- I have before me a claim for eviction of a tenant that was filed in accordance with Regulation 81 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018.
- The plaintiff is the owner of land in the well-known Yavne'el colony, known as Block 17359, Plot 60 (hereinafter: "the leased" or "the property").
- Following the decision given in the hearing on April 29, 2026, the claim against the defendant was dismissed, and therefore the judgment will relate only to the plaintiff and the defendant.
- The plaintiff claims that the defendant fundamentally breached the lease agreement signed between him and the defendant on October 30, 2024, in which he rented the property to him in exchange for rent in the sum of ILS 20,000 per month plus VAT. At a certain point, he stopped paying the rent in the amount of ILS 20,000 plus a tax appeal per month, and also did not pay ancillary payments such as water and electricity bills.
The plaintiff notes that the defendant has not paid rent as of May 2025, and that his debt is approximately ILS 200,000. The plaintiff contacted the defendant many times orally and in writing with a request to pay, and a meeting was held on November 17, 2025, in which the defendant promised to transfer payments at the beginning of January 2026, but did not comply with these agreements.
- The plaintiff is of the opinion that he has no choice but to file this action, in which he asks the court to order the eviction of the leased property from any person and object, and to charge the defendant with legal expenses and attorney's fees.
The defendant's arguments
- The defendant argues that the claim should be dismissed because there is no breach of payment that entitles to eviction remedy, and that there is a substantial and honest dispute as to the actual liability for rent. According to the defendant, the leased property cannot be used for the purpose for which it was rented (the operation of a hospitality and event complex) due to a fundamental planning impediment that became clear after the signing of the agreement, since the designation of the land is agricultural and requires a change of designation, despite the fact that the plaintiff declared in the agreement that there is no impediment to operating it for the purpose of the lease defined in the agreement.
In clause 6.1 of the lease agreement, the purpose of the lease was defined as follows: