Civil Case (B.Y.) 16923-01-23 Maya Dar v. Anift Ltd.

Judgment

Before a lawsuit and a counterclaim concerning a sub-lease agreement of a dog groomer that was operated by the plaintiff in one of the defendant's branches.

The Parties

1. The defendant, Anipet in a Tax Appeal (hereinafter: "the Defendant" or "Anift") is a company engaged in the retail sale of equipment and animal feed .
2. The plaintiff, Maya Dar (hereinafter: "the plaintiff"), has been working since September 2018 as an equipment and food seller at the defendant's branch on Hashmona'im Street in Tel Aviv (hereinafter: "the store"). Parallel to her work as a saleswoman, the plaintiff began working, as of September 2019, in the dog and cat barbershop operated by the defendant in the basement floor of the branch (hereinafter: the "barbershop" or "the rented barbershop").

General Background and the Undisputed Facts

3. On March 30, 2022, a lease agreement was signed between the plaintiff and the defendant, in the framework of which it was agreed that the plaintiff would sublease the hairdressing salon from the defendant (hereinafter: the "Agreement").
4. The main points of the agreement are as follows:
5. Rental Period - The barbershop was rented to the plaintiff for a period of one year from April 3, 2022 to April 2, 2023. It was agreed that each of the parties would be entitled to terminate the lease period with 60 days' prior notice and written notice for any reason whatsoever in such a way that at the end of the notice period, the plaintiff would vacate the barbershop.  The parties agreed to undertake a minimum of four months of rent (clause 1 of the agreement).
6. The rent was set at ILS 2,000 plus a tax appeal per month (clause 2 of the agreement).

• The condition of the leased property - in the framework of the second "reason", the plaintiff stated that she had examined the leased property and found it suitable for its purposes, subject to the provisions of clause 9 of the agreement. As part of clause 9 of the agreement, the plaintiff stated that she had inspected the barbershop and that she waived any claim of defect or non-conformity regarding it, "provided that Anift makes the repairs that must be made regarding the faulty equipment in the barbershop.  This includes repairing the vent, arranging the air conditioner hose that runs in the middle of the room into the shower, and replacing the old pipe and faucet in the shower for new ones, until April 20, 2022.  Subject to this, the sub-tenant receives the hairdressing salon in its AS IS condition and will not come to Anifit with any demand or demand to carry out additional repairs or renovations" (clause 9 of the agreement).

1. Mutual cooperation - the parties undertook to cooperate and refer their customers to each other: the plaintiff to refer all of its customers to the store and the defendant to refer all of its customers to the barbershop (clauses 11-12 of the agreement).
2. The barbershop was handed over to the plaintiff at the beginning of April 2022, when the defendant undertook to repair, within a period of three weeks, three elements of the barbershop: the vent, the air conditioning pipe, and the shower faucet head. There is no dispute that until May 31, 2022, the elements that the defendant undertook to repair had not been corrected (paragraph 27 of the defendant's summaries).
3. The plaintiff took over the barbershop in early April. On April 24, 2022, the defendant began a general renovation of the branch.  There is no dispute that on May 18, 2022, the barbershop was shut down due to the collapse of a tile from the ceiling, which collapsed as a result of dirt that accumulated on it along with a water leak (paragraph 25 of the defendant's summaries).
4. As of May 18, 2022, the barbershop was shut down, with the parties disagreeing on the reasons for this (as detailed below).
5. On August 2, 2022, the plaintiff sent a warning letter to the defendant regarding the breach of the agreement, in which she claimed that the renovation of the branch was carried out without any update prior to the signing of the agreement. The plaintiff also claimed that the renovation of the branch interfered with the day-to-day functioning of the barbershop.  According to her, the renovation work interfered with access to the barbershop, involved work noises that frightened the dogs who came to the barbershop for treatment, and caused rats to come out of their hiding place, resulting in damage and dirt.  She also claimed that the collapse of the ceiling in mid-May caused the appearance of cockroaches; that due to the leaks, mold appeared on some of the walls of the barbershop and on the barbershop's equipment; Which, together with the vent malfunction, created a suffocating mold smell that could not be worked in a barbershop.  According to the plaintiff, despite repeated warnings to fix the malfunctions, these were not resolved.  In her letter, the plaintiff noted that she had temporarily regularized the air conditioner pipe, but this did not detract from the defendant's obligation to repair it permanently.  The plaintiff demanded that the defendant fulfill its obligation in accordance with clause 9 of the agreement, repair what needs to be repaired, as well as repair the water leak from the ceiling of the barbershop and solve the problem of rats, cockroaches and access to the salon within 7 business days.  In addition, the plaintiff demanded to her credit the full rent she had paid until the day on which the barbershop's training would be completed, i.e., four months.
6. After negotiations, the parties reached agreements at the end of August 2022. It was agreed that the plaintiff would not work in the existing barbershop, but in a new barbershop that would be established within about eight days - until September 7, 2022.  It was also agreed that the plaintiff would receive a refund of three months' rent in money, which would be paid to her in one amount after a week of work she would work at the new barbershop.
7. There is no dispute that the new barbershop did not begin operating on September 7, 2022.
8. On November 27, 2022, the plaintiff notified the defendant of the cancellation of the agreement.

Summary of the parties' arguments