Renters beware: if a landlord seeks to sell a property and tenants are found to have obstructed the process — whether by refusing to hang a “for sale” sign or by hindering viewings — they may be liable for financial compensation.
In a ruling issued earlier this month, a magistrate’s court ordered a tenant and her son, who lived in the apartment with his family and served as a guarantor under the lease, to jointly pay damages to the property owner.
The case centered on a penthouse apartment rented to the defendant, where her son and his family also resided. During the lease period, the owner sought to sell the property — a right typically included in standard rental agreements. However, the landlord, represented by attorney Ilan Isachar, argued that the tenants created significant obstacles.
According to the claim, the son refused to allow a “for sale” sign to be placed outside the apartment and demanded payment to coordinate visits. The tenants were also accused of delaying the evacuation of the property by a month, causing the landlord to breach a rental agreement with new tenants.
The ruling states that in March 2023, about four months before the lease was set to expire, the owner decided to sell the property due to anticipated declines in the real estate market linked to rising interest rates. The lease agreement allowed her to sell the property at any time without the tenant’s consent, and she hired a real estate agent to assist.
The landlord and the agent encountered repeated difficulties in arranging viewings. The son allegedly refused to cooperate with requests to post the agent’s contact details, made scheduling visits difficult, argued with the agent and demanded payment for time lost from work when coordinating visits. These actions, the landlord argued, harmed efforts to sell the property.
It was also claimed that the apartment was vacated only after the lease ended and that the delay caused the landlord to breach an agreement with incoming tenants. Additionally, the tenant had committed under the lease to install a kitchenette — in exchange for reduced rent — but failed to do so, at a cost of 11,200 shekels. The landlord further alleged that the apartment, originally delivered in new condition, was returned with defects and damage requiring repairs.
The defendants denied breaching the agreement, stating they had met all obligations, paid rent and bills and were not responsible for the kitchenette installation, which they argued was the landlord’s responsibility.
Attorney Ilan Isachar
Photo: Johannes FeltenThe court partially accepted the claim. It found no breach at the outset of the lease due to additional occupants in the apartment, but ruled that the tenants had hindered the landlord’s ability to sell the property, thereby violating their contractual obligations.
The court awarded 10,000 shekels for delaying the sale, 10,000 shekels for delayed evacuation and another 10,000 shekels for causing the landlord to breach her agreement with new tenants — even though she had not yet paid compensation. An additional 11,200 shekels were awarded for failure to install the kitchenette, and 2,000 shekels for repairs.
In total, the tenant and her son were ordered to pay about 43,000 shekels in damages, plus 10,000 shekels in legal fees and court costs. The court rejected a request for compensation for emotional distress.
Attorney Isachar welcomed the ruling, saying it sends a clear message that lease agreements are binding and that violations can lead to significant financial consequences, including for guarantors. No response was provided by the defendants’ attorney.