After a protected tenant died, people acting for the landlord broke into the shop where he worked, wrecked it and kept his widow and son out, and the landlord then sued to evict them and for occupation fees. The court upheld the tenants' claim, issued a permanent injunction against the landlord and awarded ILS 70,000 in compensation, and dismissed the eviction claim as filed in bad faith.
What happened
A married couple were protected tenants of a shop in Jerusalem under a lease signed in 1990. The husband and their son ran a second-hand furniture and appliance business there, and the wife handled the accounts and helped out when needed. Over the years, the rights in the property passed to a non-profit institution that owns the property, which no longer disputes that it is the landlord for purposes of the protected tenancy.
In January 2023 the husband died. At the end of the seven days of mourning, the family found that the shop had been broken into: doors were torn out, locks replaced, equipment destroyed or missing, and people from the institution had brought in benches and tables and turned it into a study hall. The court issued a temporary injunction and the shop was returned to the family, but the attacks went on: shop windows were smashed again and again, security cameras were ripped out and stolen, the electrical system was torn out, foul-smelling substances were sprayed, and a person acting for the institution stood at the entrance scaring off customers. In 2025 people from the institution entered again, opened up the ceiling, dug into the floor and installed support columns. Despite a further injunction and a contempt-of-court order with a daily fine of ILS 1,500, the columns stayed in place.
The claim and the counterclaim
The widow and her son asked for an order removing the institution from the shop and barring it from interfering with them, plus ILS 250,000 in compensation for the damage and for distress. The institution filed a counterclaim for eviction and for occupation fees of ILS 1,440,000. It argued that the tenants had lost their protection because they had not paid rent for years (section 131(1) of the Tenant Protection Law) and because they had sublet the shop during the Tishrei holidays for selling the Four Species (section 131(6)).
The decision
The widow's status: she signed the lease and is therefore a protected tenant in her own right. In a business property the tenant does not have to work there personally; it is enough that the business remains theirs, and a family business can be run by family members.
The institution's liability: the court found an ongoing pattern of break-ins, destruction, smears and intimidation aimed at driving the family out of the shop. In its closing arguments the institution itself admitted that it had acted unlawfully. The damage was not proven precisely, and the difficulty in quantifying it was held against both sides, so compensation was set by estimate. The claim for missing cash and silverware was rejected for lack of evidence.
The rent: the institution's only witness effectively admitted that no rent had been collected for about twenty years. The institution produced no accounting records and did not prove that its warning letters had reached the tenant. On the other hand, the tenant's tax adviser produced a 2013 note stating that the landlord was refusing to accept his payment. The court held that the institution had waived or refused the rent, and was therefore barred from relying on non-payment as a ground for eviction. From now on, once it says it is willing to accept payment, the tenants will have to pay.
The holiday sublet: it had gone on for many years with the institution's knowledge and without objection. The court treated that silence as consent and rejected the claim of a breach.
The court added that even if a ground for eviction had existed, it would have granted the widow equitable relief, given the long tenancy, the family's reliance on the shop for its livelihood and the institution's resort to self-help. Since the eviction claim failed, the institution is also not entitled to occupation fees. The court further found that the eviction claim, filed only after the tenant's death and after the family's lawsuit, was brought in bad faith and was meant to burden and intimidate the tenants.
The outcome
- A permanent injunction barring the institution and anyone acting for it from entering the shop without coordinating with the tenants and obtaining their consent, or from interfering with or harassing them, together with an order to remove the support columns immediately, in coordination with them.
- Compensation of ILS 70,000 for the damage, including distress.
- Legal costs of ILS 12,000 and attorney's fees of ILS 73,160 in the main claim.
- The counterclaim was dismissed, and the institution was ordered to pay a further ILS 23,600 in attorney's fees.
The judgment was given at first instance and can be appealed.
Key takeaways
- A protected tenant whose landlord breaks into the property can go to court right away for an injunction; self-help ends up costing the landlord dearly.
- If the landlord refuses your rent, offer payment in writing, for example through a lawyer, and keep a record; that is what protects you against a non-payment claim.
- Document every loss to the business and its stock with photos, witnesses and receipts; without evidence, part of the damage will not be compensated.
- A spouse who signed the protected lease keeps their rights even if they did not work in the business personally.
- A landlord that knew of a particular use of the property for years without objecting will struggle to call it a breach later.
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.
