In addition, a reduction factor of 15% of the rent received for free trade was taken into account, in the case of limited use for catering to a specific factory, as was the case between the years 2016-17, when the restaurant was supposed to be open only to a specific factory, i.e., not to the general public.
In his conclusions, the expert states that the monthly rent due per square meter for the years 2016 and 2017, for catering services for a specific factory only (minus the reduction factor of 15%) will be approximately ILS 135 per square meter (160% 0.85%), while the rent for the years 2018 and 2019, for catering services without limitation, will be ILS 160 per square meter.
The expert examined the opinion of the plaintiff's appraiser, Avi Biron, who estimated a rent of ILS 190 per square meter for commerce and ILS 171 per square meter for limited dining, as well as the opinion of the defendant's appraiser, Moshe Sapir, who calculated a sum of ILS 145 per square meter for commerce and an amount of ILS 116 per square meter for limited catering. The expert accepted the views of the parties' experts that there was no change in the rent during the determining period.
The expert referred to comparable data presented by both parties, including crucial assessments and various lease agreements, and made adjustments to the characteristics of the property in question and its surroundings. Finally, the court's expert determined that the area of the property for the purpose of calculation is a main area (net) and that the level of finish taken into account is that of the general structure. In this context, the expert determined (both in his opinion and in response to the defendant's counsel's clarification questions) that in his opinion he took into account that the property was supposed to be delivered at the "envelope" level, and nevertheless, he reached the calculation he reached, as detailed above. This is while clarifying in his opinion that he is referring to "the level of finishing of the office building/high-tech industry and not to the level of finishing of the taxpayer' s property.”)Emphasis here - in the original. 18).