The Supreme Court also ruled: residents will be able to establish a sukkah in the courtyard
Exclusive: Residents building struggle to prevent their neighbors in Tel Aviv from building a sukkah - fails • After Magistrates and District Court, also the Supreme Court decided that there is no prevention from establishing the sukkah
- Yaki Adamker, B'Chadrei Charedim
- כ"ג טבת התשע"ג
קובי הר צבי
This is the story of a sukkah erected each year on Sukkot in the courtyard of a building in the center of Tel Aviv, and the owners were opposed to the establishment - on the grounds that it interferes with the rest of the neighbors, and they were forced to trudge from the Magistrates Court - through the District Court - until the decision made by the Supreme Court this week.
The story began when the couple signed in 2007 a lease to the apartment where they live. At the time, they never suspected that the contract does not include the possibility of building a modest hut in the courtyard. For three years the homeowners caused them difficulties to observe the holiday, and towards the end of 2010 the peace court in Tel Aviv decided that landlords must allow the construction of the sukkah, under certain conditions, even if it was a private courtyard which had not been in the contract.
Despite the ruling, the building residents did not accept the ruling and appealed to the District Court. The tenants filed by their attorney, David Shuv, a counter-appeal, in regard to the statement not to allow the establishment of a sukkah on the roof and that the area of the sukkah must be limited.
District Court decided to reject the appeal of the residents in the building, because it held that the judgment of the Magistrate's Court is a detailed and reasoned ruling and there is no place to intervene. The court received the appeal and dismissed the counterclaim restriction on the size of the sukkah as determined in the Magistrates Court, and the tenants are obligated to pay for the general maintenance of the building.
But even here the legal saga did not end.
Tenants filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. They claim that the disputed building is privately owned by a number of private owners and is not registered as a condominium. Therefore they argued that the yard and roof areas are not common areas or common property, and therefore there is no duty to give them the use of the roof for building a sukkah. They further argued that no person can purchase other property benefit from others and cannot force on others to act in good will by applying equitable considerations.
The Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that it rejected the appeal without resorting response from the other side. "This is a small and localized conflict regarding the establishment of sukkah building in the yard for a few days every year. The conflict was discussed and decided in both courts which reached the same result." The Supreme Court added the assertion: "The fact that the building is not registered as a condominium does not prevent tenants from normal and proper use in the yard."
The residents, who understood that this coming Sukkot they will observe the holiday properly, sighed with relief.
The story began when the couple signed in 2007 a lease to the apartment where they live. At the time, they never suspected that the contract does not include the possibility of building a modest hut in the courtyard. For three years the homeowners caused them difficulties to observe the holiday, and towards the end of 2010 the peace court in Tel Aviv decided that landlords must allow the construction of the sukkah, under certain conditions, even if it was a private courtyard which had not been in the contract.
Despite the ruling, the building residents did not accept the ruling and appealed to the District Court. The tenants filed by their attorney, David Shuv, a counter-appeal, in regard to the statement not to allow the establishment of a sukkah on the roof and that the area of the sukkah must be limited.
District Court decided to reject the appeal of the residents in the building, because it held that the judgment of the Magistrate's Court is a detailed and reasoned ruling and there is no place to intervene. The court received the appeal and dismissed the counterclaim restriction on the size of the sukkah as determined in the Magistrates Court, and the tenants are obligated to pay for the general maintenance of the building.
But even here the legal saga did not end.
Tenants filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. They claim that the disputed building is privately owned by a number of private owners and is not registered as a condominium. Therefore they argued that the yard and roof areas are not common areas or common property, and therefore there is no duty to give them the use of the roof for building a sukkah. They further argued that no person can purchase other property benefit from others and cannot force on others to act in good will by applying equitable considerations.
The Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that it rejected the appeal without resorting response from the other side. "This is a small and localized conflict regarding the establishment of sukkah building in the yard for a few days every year. The conflict was discussed and decided in both courts which reached the same result." The Supreme Court added the assertion: "The fact that the building is not registered as a condominium does not prevent tenants from normal and proper use in the yard."
The residents, who understood that this coming Sukkot they will observe the holiday properly, sighed with relief.
הוספת תגובה
לכתבה זו טרם התפרסמו תגובות