The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, which was enacted in 1992, enshrined a number of rights that were recognized in Israeli law as fundamental constitutional rights. One of these rights is the right to property. Thus, Article 3 of the Basic Law, entitled "Protection of Property", states: "No one's property shall be infringed.".
Hence, a person's right to protect his property has been recognized in our legal system as a cornerstone, a high-level constitutional right that cannot easily be violated.
It is likely that these are the glasses that the sub-legislator put on when he added Chapter 164 to the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5744-1984 – "Action for Eviction of a Leased Property" which is under the umbrella of Part C of the Regulations – "Special Matters".
Within the framework of the chapter, and as detailed below, the deputy legislator sought to provide a quick and effective response to a problem that appears to have become quite widespread in our districts – the eviction of tenants and/or those who lawfully held the property, who refuse to vacate it upon the end of the rental period, or upon the expiration of their right to hold the property.
In such a case, the owner's property rights are violated in several ways. beginning, In the most physical sense – the property is occupied by undesirable elements, who prevent the owner from doing with the property as his own (and it is indeed his...). again, there is a violation of the "merchantability" of the property. For example, apartment owners who wish to sell the apartment when it is vacant cannot do so. Perhaps the more serious case is precisely after such an apartment has been sold with a commitment that the apartment will be vacant, while the tenants do not move out, in a way that makes the sellers in breach of the sales contract in Al Korham. finally, In most cases where former tenants do not vacate the property, they also stop paying rent.
Therefore, and in order to provide an effective means for landlords and landowners to gain control of their properties, who in the past were forced to wait many months, and sometimes even years, before the squatters were evicted from their apartments, the legislature created an "abbreviated procedure" for the purpose of evicting the tenant.
Features of the procedure and the two-month ceiling
In order to bring to light the principles underlying the procedure, a number of unique mechanisms have been established for claiming eviction from a rented property, which make it relatively quick and efficient.
Unlike a regular lawsuit, a lawsuit to evict a tenant is characterized by "inflated pleadings" - to the lawsuit, which is titled "Lawsuit to evict a tenant," the plaintiff will attach affidavits of primary witness; expert opinions; legal references; and documents relating to the matter in question, i.e., the documents that substantiate his claims.
The defense will be filed in the same manner, within no later than 30 days.
Hence, within a month of the filing of the lawsuit, and even before any of the parties appear before it, the full factual record of the lawsuit is presented to the court (testimonies; opinions; basic documents on the basis of which the lawsuit was filed).
The next step is to schedule a hearing – the regulations state that the court will set a hearing date that will be no later than 30 days from the deadline for filing the last defense in the case.
This means that, at the latest within two months of the filing of the lawsuit, the plaintiff will be entitled to appear before the court and have his claim determined. In practice, in many cases, the decision in the case is made immediately at the end of the hearing.
Another advantage of the procedure lies in the fact that the regulations prevent the defendant from filing a counterclaim or a notice to a third party. The focus is therefore on the claim for eviction of a tenant - on ensuring that it is resolved quickly and without diversions.
Another huge advantage to the procedure, which emphasizes the importance that the legislator saw in giving "teeth" to the procedure and the short time periods for its implementation, is found precisely in the Execution Law, 1967.
Section 6 of the law states that, in contrast to the default date set for the execution of ordinary judgments, which is 30 days, the default date for the execution of judgments in a lawsuit for the eviction of a rented property is 15 days.
If we can talk about a "price" for that efficiency, it is the fact that the plaintiff reveals all the cards already at the preliminary stage of filing the lawsuit, and gives a verified version of his claims in an affidavit. However, it seems that this is the price of efficiency, a reasonable and logical price in order to expedite the procedure and allow the court to decide the dispute as quickly as possible.
And what happens next – where is the money?
A lawsuit to evict a tenant, as the name suggests – the only remedy that is obtained upon completion of the lawsuit (if it is accepted and not rejected) is the eviction of the tenant, and nothing more. As we noted above, in most cases, the property owners suffer significant financial damages, which cannot be claimed as part of the lawsuit to evict a tenant.
The regulations also address this matter, which state that the plaintiff will be entitled to claim additional remedies (compensation, rent, etc.) for the same cause (the invasion of the land), in a separate proceeding and without the need to obtain permission from the court (permission that is required in other cases in which a plaintiff requests to split the remedies he is claiming for the same cause).
Beyond the consideration of efficiency, the separation of the claims makes sense, since only after the property is finally vacated will the plaintiff be able to quantify the actual damages suffered by him accurately, without having to estimate them. Furthermore, after the court has already determined that the use of the property was unlawful (and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to eviction of the tenant), the claim for the remaining remedies will focus on the issue of damages and not on the fundamental question of the violation, on which, as stated, a judicial decision has already been given. Hence, the second claim is also expected to be relatively quick and efficient.
more Ruth Spitzer, fromWolfson Weinstein & Co.', specializes in the fields of law Commercial-civilian, and litigation.
* The text is not a substitute for individual legal advice. Reliance on the information is the sole responsibility of the user.
Join the Haredim 10 Facebook page >>
Join the X page of Haredim 10 >>
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
