Therefore, with regard to the middle of March, Meitar will refund 50% of half of the rent.
- The Champions' Workshop is also petitioning for the full receipt of the funds forfeited by Meitar for the months of April and May.
- As the evidence indicates, I am satisfied that the Champions' Workshop vacated the leased property at the end of April 2020. In the circumstances, and in light of my determination above, in light of the Corona period, Meitar will refund 50% of the rent.
An equal decree must also be taken for the month of May 2020 only.
- Meitar located an alternative tenant, signed an agreement with him, and the new lease period began on January 1, 2021.
- In the circumstances, I am satisfied that Meitar acted to reduce its damages, and tried to locate an alternative tenant, at a time when this task was not easy (see above).
The Champions' Workshop was in the leased property until the end of April 2020. As stated, Meitar negotiated with a potential tenant - see Appendix 21 to Anavi's affidavit and on May 14, 2020, she signed a document with a realtor to order brokerage services (Appendix 22 to Anavi's affidavit). Finally, Meitar located an alternative tenant and signed an agreement with him in September 2020 five months later. It seems to me that this is a reasonable period of time. In addition, in practice, the alternative tenant entered into the lease in January 2021 (Appendix 23 to Anavi's affidavit).
- Shalom Lerner, in his book: Renting Properties (1990), wrote:
"In our opinion, the general burden on an injured party to reduce his damage also applies to a rental relationship, and when the tenant abandons the tenant and refuses to pay rent, the landlord
to look for another tenant."
See and compare more on the matter: Civil Appeal 4893/14 Walid Hamoud Zoabi v. State of Israel - Ministry of Finance (Nevo, March 3, 2016) Veteran Civil Case 31364-01-15 Tzameret Ganei Hadera 1989 in Tax Appeal v. New-Pharm Drug Stores in Tax Appeal (Nevo, December 1, 2019)).
- In light of the conduct of the Champions Workshop, as stated, and given that Meitar alone had to find an alternative tenant, the Champions Workshop should be obligated to pay half of the rent for the months of June 2020 to January 2021, i.e., 7 months, in the sum of ILS 253,848.
The issue of air conditioners
- According to the Champions' Workshop, Meitar did not allow them to vacate the air conditioners in the leased property (Appendix 12 to Levy's affidavit) worth ILS 85,118.
The Generals' Workshop summarized this argument in its summaries, in weak and general language (paragraph 28 of the summaries).
- On the other hand, Meitar argued in her statement of defense (paragraph 44) that the provisions of the agreement explicitly stipulate under what conditions the tenant was entitled to dismantle the air conditioners. According to her, these conditions were not formulated, and therefore the Champions Workshop was not entitled to dismantle and take the air conditioners when the tenant was abandoned.
- Anavi, in his testimony, testified that the generals' workshop took the air conditioners down from the walls (p. 47 of the transcript, lines 26-28).
- In his affidavit (paragraph 35), Levy stated that according to the provisions of the lease agreement (clause 6 (g)) the Champions Workshop is entitled to take the air conditioners in the leased property only at the end of 5 years of lease. However, since the tenant was evicted due to thwarting, she believed that she was entitled to take the air conditioners with her.
However, Levy stated (ibid., paragraph 36) that the air conditioners remained in Meitar's possession.
- In light of the aforesaid, in light of the agreement, and in light of the rejection of the claim of thwarting, as stated above, the law of this component is rejection.
The damages claimed by Meitar
- Meitar petitioned for financial compensation for the months of January 2021 to March 2022 (the end of the lease period) - ILS 159,038. An amount that reflects the rent that the Champions Workshop had to pay minus the amount that Meitar received from a substitute tenant (ILS 36,264 multiplied by 14 months, i.e., ILS 507,696, minus ILS 348,660).
- It is true that this remedy is not required in the statement of claim, and it is subject to dismissal.
However, even if we examine this element on the merits of the matter, it is subject to rejection. From a perusal of the lease agreement signed by Meitar with the alternative tenant (Appendix 23 to Anavi's affidavit), we learn that Meitar leased an area of 535 square meters in the sum of ILS 21,000, whereas the lease agreement that is the subject of the proceeding was for an area almost twice its size, which indicates that in practice, there was no reduction on Meitar's part (see also a simple mathematical calculation - the division of rent in the area; In practice, Meitar received a higher rent than the alternative tenant, and of course everything is in proportion to the actual rented space).
- As part of its statement of claim, Meitar petitioned for management and maintenance fees in the sum of ILS 22,000, damages to the leased property in the sum of ILS 100,000, and also attached an appraiser's opinion on its behalf.
Meitar in its summaries, for some reason, did not petition for these damages, but rather petitioned for expenses incurred in respect of the expenses incurred in respect of the maintenance expenses of the common areas during the 9 months in which the leased area was abandoned (600 times 9), a total of ILS 5,400; the sum of ILS 7,313 for the preparation of an agreement that was not executed with an alternative tenant; A sum of ILS 24,570 in respect of brokerage fees for finding an alternative tenant.