Here, at Yosef Samuel & Co. we have extensive and comprehensive experience in the area of rental and tenant protection, including thorough handling of unregulated rental of real assets designed for commercial and residential usage, as well as rentals that are regulated under the Tenant Protection Act. Our services would include drafting rental agreements, collecting payments, managing trust accounts and ongoing interaction with relevant authorities, tenants and professionals whose services are required for upkeep and maintenance.
Our firm provides legal services at the highest standard and offers ongoing handling in the process of carrying out lease transactions, where we will address all issues and problems arising from the execution of the agreement and chart an appropriate course of action.
Yosef Samuel & Co. also represen clients on the other side of the fence as well as landlords and tenants, respectively, in disputes arising occasionally as a result lease transactions, such as a lawsuit designed to evict tenants (including legally protected tenants), rent collection suits, claims for damages arising from rental of property, claims to determine the amount of payment due in unprotected rental situations, and more.
Yosef Samuel & Co. clients receive professional and comprehensive guidance, that is based on extensive knowledge and experience of the firm's attorneys in handling leasing and rental transactions:
o Handling and management of either unprotected tenancies or such that are subject to the provisions of the Tenant Protection Act, including rental agreements for apartments, offices and shops, payments' collection, trust accounts' management, ongoing interaction with relevant authorities, tenants and professionals (as required for upkeep and maintenance).
o Representation in courts in eviction lawsuits whether the tenants are protected by applicable rent control laws or are unprotected, and collection of accumulated debts caused by non-payment of rent.
o Representation of landlords in courts either in eviction lawsuits against legally protected tenants or in order to determine unregulated rent, as well as cases of defending legally protected tenants from eviction. We also provide legal opinions on the subject of the Tenant Protection Act and formulating courses of action on such issues.
Legal Representation in Various Adjudication Forums re Leasing and Rental Agreements:
o On an inner plateau, disputes between parties (tenant and landlord): representing clients in various adjudication forums regarding real estate leasing and rental agreements, including lawsuits against real estate lessees, such as claims resulting from tenants' refusal to be evicted, using a rapid adjudicative process; breach of contract; failure to pay rent; leased property maintenance; tenants' complaints; guaranties' forfeiture.
o On an outer plane, in relation to authorities – handling various claims and requirements of the authorities (such as providing the identity of the person in possession to facilitate municipal billing; refusal to grant licenses, conservation department's requirements, tenants' complaints and handling different municipal decrees. If and when necessary, our firm, who specializes in administrative representation, could handle filing appeals, administrative appeals, administrative petitions and filing petitions with the High Court of Justice.
o Drafting residential lease agreements – formulation and drafting diverse real estate lease agreements: representing lessors and lessees, preparation of residential and commercial contracts, starting with finding suitable property/tenant, proceeding to the drafting of contracts that are fully accustomed to the parties' expectations and handling all issues arising therefrom (signing guarantors, preparing minutes, handling changes in purpose, usage or zoning before municipalities and other authorities, bank guarantees, statements preparation, and the like).
o Drafting commercial lease agreements – formulation and preparation of lease agreements as to various commercial properties (such as shopping malls, office space, shops, restaurants, cafes, bars, garages, and like properties). Legal representation of landlords and tenants: our firm accompanies the client closely, commencing with finding the right property, on to the preparation of a fitting contract for both landlord and tenant, placing an emphasis on the nature of the activity in the leased property and, finally, dealing with various authorities' requirements and securing requisite permits and approvals (such as conforming use permit, business license, conservation department 's requirements, securing purpose, usage or zoning changes from either the municipal or other authorities, and like activities).
o Accompanying of asset management companies – providing legal advice to asset management companies: Initially, finding suitable property either for purchase or rent, as the case may be; representation of clients in negotiations for adequate funding and negotiating amount of payments; ongoing interaction, on behalf of the landlord, with the tenant and authorities with regard to municipal charges and various levies, especially property taxes. The firm works continually with various professionals to ameliorate, in real time, surfacing deficiencies of varying types in the property being handled.
o Interacting with authorities – over the years, our firm has gained extensive experience in handling legal issues before various authorities, particularly local ones, in securing different types of business permits (non-conforming use permit, business license, fire department permits, permits from the Tel Aviv conservation department, banks, etc.). This experience, combined with our specific expertise in the area of rental and leasing law, gives our firm a comprehensive platform in relation to business entities/entrepreneurs who wish to purchase and manage income producing properties of various kinds; especially, platforms that can accommodate overseas residents and entrepreneurs.
Eviction of Legally Protected Tenant for Purpose of Private Construction (article summary)
What does the law say in the case where a property owner – on whose property resides a legally protected tenant – who is otherwise entitled to obtain a permit to demolish an existing improvement on his property and construct a new one in its stead?
Often there are cases where the owner's property right, to the use of his property, clashes with a protected tenant's right, to maintain his residence at his place of abode. One example, where many property owners find themselves faced with a bleak situation, is where, on one hand, there is an approved plan that allows them to demolish an existing improvement on the property and replace it with another or, alternately, gives them permission to make significant modifications, actions which, no doubt, will lead to value enhancement of the property. On the other hand, the same property has a protected tenant who, ostensibly, cannot be evicted and, as a result, it seems that the owner would have to give up the opportunity to upgrade the value his real estate asset.
The solution to this case is found in the provisions of Article 131(10) of the Tenant Protection Act (consolidated version) (1972), which deals with a situation where the owner obtains a permit to one of three possible alterations: (i) demolishing the improvement on the property and construction of another in its place; (ii) extensive alteration of the improvement; or (iii) extensive renovation of the asset. The relevant provision of the statute stipulates several conditions that must be met before eviction of the protected tenant can take place. Read More ...
Eviction of Legally Protected Tenant for Purpose of Private Construction (the entire article)
Often there are cases where the owner's property right, to the use of his property, clashes with a protected tenant's right, to maintain his residence at his place of abode. One example, where many property owners find themselves faced with a bleak situation, is where, on the one hand, there is an approved plan that allows them to demolish an existing improvement on the property and supplant it with another, or alternately, make significant modifications, actions which, no doubt, will lead to value enhancement of the property. On the other hand, the same property has a protected tenant who, apparently, cannot be evicted and, as a result, it seems that the owner would have to give up the opportunity to improve his real estate asset.
The solution is found in the provisions of Article 131(10) of the Tenant Protection Act (consolidated version) (1972) (hereinafter, the "Act"), which deals with a situation where an owner has received a permit to one of three possible alterations: (i) demolishing the improvement on the property and construction of another in its place; (ii) a substantial alteration of the improvement; or (iii) an extensive renovation of, or fundamental repair work affecting, the asset. The relevant provision of the statute stipulates several conditions that must be met before eviction of the protected tenant can take place (in juxtaposition to finding of an alternative arrangement).
As a rule, courts tend, in recent years, to narrowly interpret the statute in a manner that will minimize the harm caused to property owners, whose assets house protected tenants. The reason for this approach has to do with the length of time that has passed since the law was enacted and the changed in circumstances since.
The law's origin is an order from the British Mandate's era (1922-1948). Its enactment was the result of the then prevailing bleak economic conditions, which created an apprehension of housing distress and cases where, save for the law's protection, people would have found themselves homeless.
The law underwent several changes and amendments since its enactment, but its underlying rationale remains the same – setting a low level rent for protected tenants and limiting the prospects of their eviction.
Over the years, the situation in the country has changed: the economic reality is no longer one where protected tenants are necessarily poor individuals, and landlords are necessarily wealthy ones whose property may be the object of injurious limitations for the sake of minimizing negative economic impact on the rights of protected tenants, all the more so in light of the 1992 enactment of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, which gave constitutional status to the right to own property.
As a derivative of the changes occurring over the years, Article 131(10) of the Act now enshrines the right of a property owner to make alterations to his assets, as being superior to the protected tenant's right to remain on the property.
Section 131(10) provides that the property owner has to meet three conditions before he may evict a protected tenant: First, a desire to destroy the improvement on his property in order to build another in its place; second, that he has already obtaining a building permit; and third, the giving of a written notice to the tenant of his willingness to provide the tenant with an alternative place of residence.
As part of the trend to narrowly interpret the law, courts have eased the requirements related to the second condition – obtaining a building permit – and a number of rulings have determined that neither literal nor formal interpretation should be accorded this condition. For example, if the property owner does not have a valid building permit or the building permit is only partial, he may still evict the tenant if he proves that there is no impediment to subsequently receiving the required building permit.
Note, that a protected tenant's eviction requires the property owner to provide the former with a favorable alternative. The matter of the alternative arrangement is regulated in Sections 133(b) and (c) of the Act. It may be either in the form of an alternative leased property or in the form of compensatory payment equal to the so-called "Key Money" , which usually is approximately 60% of the value of the property in fee simple and sometimes an extra payment to compensate for the moving costs.
In conclusion, the residence of a protected tenant at the property is not set in stone. In some cases, for instance as was delineated above, where the property owner seeks to demolish the improvement and build in its place a new one or, at least, substantially alter it, the tenant may be evicted provided the presence of certain conditions is demonstrated.
Caveat: This summary is not a substitute for appropriate, specific legal advice.