After a seven-year tenancy, the landlord cashed a ILS 30,000 security cheque without prior notice and kept ILS 11,151 for alleged damage to the apartment. The court held that he had not proved the damage, ordered him to return the money and dismissed his defamation claim against the tenant.
What happened
A tenant lived with her family in a five-room apartment in Herzliya for seven years, from 2018 to 2025. According to the court, relations were good throughout: the landlord made repairs when asked, and even invested ILS 9,744 in the apartment before the last lease extension in 2024, while the tenant paid on time and looked after the property.
When the tenancy ended, the landlord did not come to the apartment and no handover report was prepared. He claimed the apartment was returned with unpainted walls, torn screens, holes, damp and broken doors. He cashed the entire security cheque, ILS 30,000, without giving notice. Only after the tenant's lawyer sent him warning letters and a police complaint was filed did he return ILS 18,849, keeping ILS 11,151 (including VAT) to cover part of repairs that he said cost ILS 18,703.
Two opposing claims
The landlord sued the tenant for ILS 38,900 for defamation, threatening harassment and emotional distress. He said the lawyer's letters called him, among other things, a "thief", and that the police complaint was baseless. He also asked for an order barring her from contacting or disparaging him. The tenant, for her part, claimed ILS 25,150: the balance of the deposit, ILS 4,000 in legal fees and ILS 10,000 for distress. She said she had returned the apartment painted and in good condition, and that the alleged defects were normal wear or the result of poor maintenance.
The landlord's claim is dismissed
- Defamation: the letters were sent only to the landlord himself, and it was not shown that anyone else saw them. Without publication to a third party there is no defamation under section 2 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, however harsh the wording.
- Injunction: a small claims court has no power to grant injunctions, under section 60(a) of the Courts Law, so the request was struck out.
- Threatening harassment: the relevant law provides an order to prevent future harassment, not money compensation for the past. Besides, a lawyer's letter and a police complaint in a money dispute are reasonable steps to protect one's rights.
- Emotional distress: this is not a standalone cause of action, and with the other claims rejected there was no basis for compensation.
The tenant's claim: the burden of proof is on the landlord
Of the amount withheld, ILS 8,000 before VAT was for painting the apartment, and ILS 1,450 before VAT for repairing the balcony door screen, a smoke detector and a shutter in the safe room. The lease required the apartment to be returned painted white and clean, but also provided for a joint inspection at the end, with the tenant repainting only walls that had dirt or damage she caused and that could not be cleaned.
The court held that the landlord, who had not inspected the apartment when she left or made a specific demand at the time, had not met his burden of proof. He relied on a video sent by the new tenant that showed only one wall. The tenant, by contrast, produced a receipt for professional painting costing ILS 4,000 shortly before she moved out, and a video showing the apartment white and clean. A few finishing flaws did not justify making her pay to repaint the whole apartment.
As for the damp and peeling, under section 25H of the Rental and Loan Law a tenant is liable only for damage caused by unreasonable use, and other defects fall on the landlord. It was not shown that the damp came from the tenant rather than waterproofing problems or wear. The other repairs were not shown to go beyond normal wear either, and correspondence from 2020 showed the landlord had already fixed a screen door at his own expense in the past.
The court added that section 25I(d) of the same law requires a landlord to give the tenant reasonable advance notice before enforcing a security and an opportunity to make repairs. Cashing the whole cheque without warning reinforced the conclusion that the deduction was unlawful.
The outcome
The landlord's claim was dismissed. The tenant's claim was largely accepted: the landlord must return ILS 11,151 to her and pay ILS 1,100 in costs for both proceedings, within 30 days. Her claim for the lawyer's fees for the warning letters was rejected, because small claims are meant to be handled without lawyers, and the distress claim was rejected too. An application for leave to appeal may be filed with the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court within 30 days.
Key takeaways
- Landlords: before cashing a security cheque, give the tenant written notice a reasonable time in advance and a chance to make repairs. The law requires it.
- Be present on handover day, prepare a joint handover report and film every room. Without that, proving damage will be hard.
- Tenants: before moving out, keep receipts for painting and repairs, and film the whole apartment.
- Damp, peeling and years of wear are not the tenant's responsibility unless unreasonable use is proved.
- A warning letter sent only to the other side, even a harsh one, is usually not defamation, because nobody else was told.
This article summarizes a published Israeli court decision in plain language and is not legal advice. Every case depends on its facts. The parties' names have been omitted. This is a first-instance decision and may be appealed.
