Tenants in a historical building in the Sderot Rothschild area of Tel Aviv were shocked to discover that one of the apartment owners had illegally made extensive modifications to the property. The owner had dug under the building’s foundations without obtaining a permit, breached external walls in the basement, and divided his two apartments into four separate units, which he rented out as a makeshift hotel.
The dispute came to light as part of a lawsuit filed by the other owners of the building against the neighbor. They alleged that the neighbor’s actions had not only violated building regulations but also posed a danger to the structural integrity of the entire building. They claimed that the unauthorized excavation work had damaged the foundations and demanded that the neighbor restore the building to its original condition.
The defendant, however, argued that he had only made internal changes to the apartments and carried out renovation work that did not require a permit. He claimed that the purpose of the modifications was to clean the basement, remove waste, and prevent odor nuisances. The defendant also alleged that the plaintiffs did not live in the building and therefore had not been inconvenienced by his actions.
After considering the evidence presented by both sides, Judge Azaria Alkalai of the Bat Yam Magistrate’s Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The judge appointed an expert to assess the situation, and the expert confirmed that the defendant had indeed divided the apartments into separate units and expanded the basement without proper permits. The judge rejected the defendant’s claim that the apartments were shared, stating that they constituted “a kind of hotel.”
As a result, the judge ordered the defendant to destroy all the illegal housing units he had constructed and to make the necessary repairs to the building. The defendant was also instructed to close any openings and excavations made without permits, seal off the basement from the ground floor apartment, and fill up the area to the zero line of the building.
Regarding compensation, the judge acknowledged that the plaintiffs did not personally live in the building, but noted that the defendant’s actions had still caused harm and inconvenience. The exact amount of compensation was not specified in the article.
The case serves as a reminder of the importance of following proper procedures and obtaining the necessary permits when making modifications to a building. It also highlights the need for tenants and owners in shared spaces to respect the rights and well-being of their neighbors.