Adv. Nadir Aviad, Partner and Head of the Real Estate and Real Estate Financing Department at the firm of Adv. Borochovsky & Co., Yiftach Yotam, Adv. At the firm
About a month ago, the Supervisor of Land Registration discussed a lawsuit by tenants in a building on Bar-Ilan Street in Bat Yam. This is a four-story building, which was declared a dangerous structure five years ago.
In 2016, the tenants entered into an agreement with a developer, according to which in exchange for the strengthening and improvement work, the developer will receive the building rights that apply to the house in order to build new apartments. The owners of the existing apartments will in return receive the addition of a sun terrace as well as the installation of an elevator in the building. According to the plans attached to the agreement, only new apartments will be built in the new apartments, while the existing apartments will be offered an alternative protection solution in a shared shelter to be used as part of the works.
In the lawsuit filed by the tenants with the supervisor, they claim that they understood that this was a proposal that maximizes their return, given the fact that other developers were unable to promote a similar project to strengthen the house due to lack of economic viability.
We further noted that the local committee rejected the tenant’s claim and ruled that there was no obligation to set up emergency rooms in the TMA 38 project when the developer proposed an alternative protection solution. Defendant did not appeal this decision and thus the decision became final.
The tenant argued that there is importance in building a security system within the owner-occupied apartments and that the majority opinion does not necessarily reflect the interest of the individuals who make up the majority, and therefore, the Supervisor should examine whether the majority decision contradicts and legitimizes the minority interest.
In this context, it was argued that the claim regarding the developer’s obligation to maintain equality between the permits as a precaution against the construction of the security rooms is irrelevant in our case, since according to the ruling the equality test applies within the divisions themselves, and the divisions must be balanced in other ways.
Verdict: The Supervisor of Land Registration has ruled that the objection of one of the tenants out of 20 tenants is unreasonable and therefore she must sign the TMA agreement even though it is not possible to build premises in the existing apartments. He justified his decision on four main points: the unreasonable possibility of building dimensions in the relevant circumstances of the project; that no property infringement within his authority has been proven; non-interference in the decisions of the planning committees; The reinforcement.
In addition, the Supervisor is convinced that since this is a project of strengthening the existing house and not of demolition and construction, building security rooms in existing apartments, for all that it entails, will increase the cost of the project and jeopardize its economic viability.
Interpretation: In a situation where land reserves in Israel are dwindling and apartment prices are rising, it is very important to promote projects for urban renewal, and to make decisions such as the decision reviewed above – which benefit mainly with the owners and contribute to project promotion.
We hope that the legal system will act as required against “project refusers”, both by imposing heavy fines and by a purposive interpretation of the provisions of law and order.
4/185/2020