Shabbat Parashat Noach 5785

P'ninat Mishpat: Dispute upon Ending Rental

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) rented out an apartment to the defendant (=def) for seven years and was unhappy with several things upon their vacating it. Pl is suing def 2,800 NIS for returning the apartment dirty; 4,200 NIS for not doing a proper job of painting; 1,950 NIS for damage to the door; 350 NIS for some damage to screens; 12,733 NIS for the counter being cracked and stained. Def claim that they left the apartment clean and painted and that they treated the apartment with care, so they should therefore not be obligated to pay anything.

Ruling: This ruling is generally based on two broad principles. 1) When there is a doubt as to whether a litigant should be able to extract payment, we say that the one who wants to do so is not believed without proof. 2) When it appears that one is obligated to pay, but an expert is needed to determine how much and the expense of hiring an expert for a relatively small claim is illogical, beit din rules based on compromise.

Regarding painting, the contract states that the apartment must be returned painted. Pictures that pl presented show areas that are not reasonably painted. While the price estimate pl presented is reasonable, it is not necessary to redo the whole paint job, as the pictures show that only fixing up, and not redoing, is necessary. Since this type of work does not even require a professional, the price to be paid is 300 NIS.

Regarding cleanliness, pl did not prove that the apartment was returned in a dirty state, and therefore the majority of dayanim rule that def are exempt. According to one dayan, the implication of def’s presentation leaves room to believe that the cleanliness was somewhat sup-par, but that can be remedied by a cleaning that costs 250 NIS.

Regarding the door, the contract states that def are exempt from paying for normal wear and tear of the apartment. Pictures indicate that the door is not in bad enough condition that it needs to be replaced. However, it appears that the wallpaper on the door should be changed, for which we will obligate 400 NIS.

Regarding the screens, def admit they did the damage. Beit din concludes that this is not normal usage and obligates the reasonable claim of 350 NIS.

Regarding the counter, it is difficult to know what happened during the seven years of rental. Def deny that this is the place where the hot plate was placed and do not have an explanation as to what caused the stain and the crack. According to the majority of the dayanim, since there is no proof that def did anything that caused the problems, they are exempt. According to the minority opinion, we can assume that the crack was not from normal use. However, even according to that opinion, there should be no more than payment to compensate for the aesthetic deterioration, as the counter is still fully functional.

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend