On the other hand, Vitaly claimed that he had informed Scheiner in advance in January 2022 of his intention to leave the apartment, in accordance with the provisions of clause 12.2 of the agreement, and therefore he did not owe Scheiner any sums, except for a certain amount for municipal tax payments and other obligations that had not yet been paid since Vitaly did not know the exact amounts he had to pay. Vitaly claims that he paid the rent in full by April 2022 (inclusive) and that taking into account the date of the advance notice and Shiner's request that he vacate the apartment almost immediately at the end of April 2022 – he is not liable for the rent payments for the months of May and June 2022, as claimed by Shiner, who even presented for repayment the checks that were given to him for those months (the checks were forfeited by a N.H.B. party – a cancellation order was given).
- In the hearing held before me, the appraiser, Mr. Amisha Lior (hereinafter: "the appraiser") appeared on behalf of Shiner. On behalf of Vitaly, Artyom appeared for the hearing this evening. In addition, an interpreter from the court was present for the purpose of translating into Russian for Vitaly.
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The Plaintiff's Claims
- 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)There is no dispute between the parties that the lease agreement was extended for an additional year as aforesaid, subject to the fact that Wheatley forwarded in advance 12 checks for the payment of the monthly rent in the sum of NIS 3,000 each, and that the security check would also be used for the second lease period.
- According to Shiner, at the beginning of 2022, he found out that Vitaly was not meeting his ongoing obligations, including the payments of the house committee, and even checks submitted by Vitaly for the rent were forfeited. When Mr. Scheiner approached Wheatley several times in an attempt to settle his debts, and his requests were not answered, Mr. Scheiner contacted Vitaly's two guarantors in order for them to settle Vitaly's cumulative debts.
- According to Shiner-Vitaly, he left the apartment unilaterally, leaving behind not only debts but also damage caused to the apartment. Therefore , Mr. Shiner submitted the security check for repayment and two checks for rent for the months of May and June 2022, claiming that Vitaly did not act in accordance with clause 12.2 of the agreement and did not give sufficient notice in advance, left damages in the apartment, owed Shiner the agreed compensation in the sum of NIS 7,500 as well as rent for the months of January to April 2022 (see the arguments of counsel Shiner in his summaries, pp. 38, lines 16-26).
The defendant's arguments
- According to Vitaly, he does not owe Shiner any money for rent since he paid all his obligations in respect of the rent until April 2022, when he left the apartment with advance notice to Shiner inJanuary 2022. According to Vitaly, from the date of the announcement in January 2022, Shiner began to act against him illegally: demanding payments that he did not deserve and sending him and his guarantors repeated messages, including threats to cut off electricity and water services.
- Vitaly added that the notice of termination of the agreement from January 2022 was given to Scheiner through Mr. Artyom due to language restrictions, and Artyom even advertised the apartment in Vitaly's name in order to find an alternative tenant. According to Vitaly, Shiner also advertised the apartment andeven brought in a candidate for rent who visited the apartment, but in the end the agreement between them did not materialize.
- In his affidavit, Vitaly claimed that he had acted in full cooperation with Shiner all along, and that he had indeed not paid some of the ongoing payments, including electricity, water and municipal taxes, but that the exact amounts of the unpaid payments were not known to him, and that Shiner did not present him with accounts for payment. According to him, the non-payment stemmed from the difficulty of making an update with the relevant authorities regarding the change of holders during the COVID-19 pandemic , and therefore he was in fact dependent on Shiner in this matter.
- Vitaly added that as of March 25, 2022, Shiner contacted him with a request to vacate the apartment in order to present it to potential tenants, and in April 2022 they even asked to leave the apartment immediately. Indeed, in April 2022, Vitaly vacated the apartment at Shiner's request. According to him, after his departure, Shiner contacted him and demanded payment in the amount of NIS 3,400 for the final disposal of the unpaid current expenses (water, electricity, etc.), and Wheatley did act at Mr. Shiner's request and paid him the said sum in cash.
Copied from Nabodion and decided
- The law of the claim is to be accepted in part. I will present below my reasons for my conclusion.
- The legal questions to be decided in this proceeding are: whether Vitaly met the conditions of clause 12.2 of the rental agreement; whether the payment of the checks for the months of May and June 2022 by Shiner was done lawfully; whether the security check was realized due to damage to the apartment and debts was lawful.
Did Vitaly meet the conditions of clause 12.2 of the lease agreement?
- For the sake of clarity, I have found that clause 12.2(b) of the agreement should be brought as follows:
"If the tenant decides unilaterally that he is shortening the lease period... The tenant shall notify the landlord 3 months in advance, and shall also pay a fine in the sum of NIS 7,500 , following the unilateral breach of the agreement, unless he finds a tenant who will accept the full terms of the contract in his place and be approved by the landlord."
- It should also be remembered that in accordance with the provision of Section 39 of the Contracts (General Part) Law, 5733-1973 (hereinafter: the "Contracts Law"), a party to a contract must act in good faith both in the performance of the contract and in the realization of rights deriving from it.
- As noted, according to Vitaly, he informed Shiner at the beginning of January 2022, about three months after the date of his eviction of the apartment, of his intention to terminate the contractual engagement. However, there is no dispute that Vitaly was unable to locate an alternative tenant who would step into his shoes for the remaining lease period until the end of the second lease period, in accordance with the provisions of clause 12.2(b) of the agreement.
- This is what Vitali argued in paragraph 14 of his affidavit:
"I informed the plaintiff through Artyom that I wanted to end the lease period, and even in the same conversation, Artyom informed him that I was willing to be in the apartment until another tenant was found in my place, for at least 4 months, so that the plaintiff would have enough time to find another tenant in my place and even advertise the apartment for rent, with the intention that he would notcause the plaintiff any damage."
- According to Vitaly, there are correspondences from which it appears that notice was given to Shiner in accordance with clause 12.2. However, an examination of the evidence shows that this is not the case. I did not find any notice in all the correspondence attached as claimed by Vitaly, neither in Scheiner's correspondence with Vitaly nor in Scheiner's correspondence with Artyom.
- In addition, in the hearing – and see pp. 29-30 of the transcript – Artyom's testimony regarding the notice of the eviction to Shiner in January 2022 emerged as follows (my emphasis D.B.):
"A: For a conversation, which exactly?