Civil Case (Center) 63837-03-22 Aharon Itzkowitz v. Tal Mordechai Naveh - part 15

Second, as stated above, clause 7.11 of Part C of Standard 21.1 states that the "economic benefits" of the apartment must also be taken into account.  The fact that the apartment serves as a dental clinic, a source of income, turns the Itzkowitz family's apartment into an apartment that is different from the other apartments in the complex.  The "excess consideration" of the Itzkowitz family, if any, stems from the economic benefit.  I accept the plaintiffs' argument in this context that moving the clinic to another location necessarily entails costs, for example, loss of work days, loss of geographical reputation and customers, transportation of medical equipment, and more.  These are costs that are not identical to other tenants whose apartments are used as residential apartments (see, for example, a claim that was conducted before the Supervisor of Land Registration in a proceeding marked 853/19 Yahav Ron v. Yesh Rael Nitza (Nevo, December 5, 2021), at para. 58.  An appeal filed against the Supervisor's decision was rejected in a different appeal - Civil (Tel Aviv) 32926-01-22 Israel Nitza v. Yahav Ron).  The defendants did not deal with this claim.  Admittedly, the Itzkowitz apartment serves as a clinic without a permit.  This is improper conduct, and the court does not legitimize or justify it.  At the same time, I do not have before me a claim filed by the Lod Municipality against the Itzkowitz family due to excessive use, but rather a claim under  section 2(a) of the Pinui-Binui Law, in which the court is only concerned with the question of the reasonableness of the defendants' refusal to engage in an evacuation-reconstruction transaction, in accordance with the unique circumstances of the case.  In the unique circumstances before me, the defendants never objected to the Itzkowitz family's use of the apartment as a dental clinic (see, for example, the interrogation of defendant 2 in the par. of May 19, 2024, at pp. 455, paras. 11-20, pp. 457, paras. 12-15, and at p. 458, paras. 8-13).  In fact, defendant No. 2 testified during the interrogation that if the Itzkowitz family receives a clinic in a large area, then they will be "ashamed" (p. 469, s. 26, p. 470, s. 1-9).