In light of the above, I am of the opinionthat in the circumstances of this case, the argument of thwarting should not be accepted. In court rulings, claims of thwarting made in similar circumstances by tenants were rejected (see, for example, 19954-04-22 Eldad Shomron v. Edna Enav [published in Nevo] (November 22, 2022), paragraph 11 of the judgment; T.A. (Tel Aviv) 49970-12-20 Givatayim Renaissance Halls in Tax Appeal v. Avi. Holdings in Tax Appeal [Published in Nevo] (December 22, 2022); 18536-07-22 Yariv Yitzhak Ben Shahar v. M.G. Fox in a Tax Appeal [Published in Nevo] (January 16, 2023), paragraph 24 of the judgment; see references inTel Aviv Herzliya 28260-05-20 Mandin in Tax Appeal v. M.N.M. Shahaf in a Tax Appeal (Nevo, August 22, 2023) hereinafter: "The Mendin Case").
- It seems to me that considerations of good faith also lead to the same conclusion.
Thus, the Corona pandemic has taken the entire world by surprise, and the step taken by the Champions' Workshop, and the immediate abandonment of the rented property, without bearing the rent and/or trying to reduce it, while placing all the damage on Meitar's shoulders, cannot be considered in my opinion, as "good faith."
Even if I accept the argument that the Champions' Workshop could not have made use of the leased property at all, I am of the opinion that it is not possible to "drop" the full rent on Meitar, and that the latter will bear the damage alone.
- A step of canceling the lease agreement, unilaterally and immediately, without paying rent, in a period of crisis, cannot be considered good faith. As mentioned, the Champions Workshop did not turn to Meitar to reduce the rent, but chose to take a unilateral step, without any consideration for the other side.
In this context, what was said in La Reine's appeal is appropriate: "Even if it could be accepted that there was a thwarting during part of the period, this would not have enabled the respondent to refrain from paying rent altogether...".
- I believe that the Champions' Workshop has done its own thing, decided to leave the leased property, leaving Meitar to deal with the crisis alone. Both sides should have come to terms and tried to make things right, in light of the unforeseen situation in which both sides found themselves. And as you may recall, despite her claims, she resumed her activity and rented another place in Binyamina.
- It has not escaped my attention that in the time frame that Meitar found herself in, during the Corona period, she had to find an alternative tenant.
- Moreover, it can be said that Meitar acted in order to reduce its damages, and the period of time in which it located an alternative tenant, in light of the events of the period, is reasonable in my opinion.
- It appears that Meitar spoke in June-July 2020 with the "Hagarin" company in order for it to step into the shoes of the Champions' Workshop; In addition, a draft agreement with comments was sent, but at the end of the day they did not call (see Appendix 21 to Anavi's affidavit).
On May 14, 2020, Meitar was assisted by brokerage services (see Appendix 22 to Anavi's affidavit).