Demanded recognition as a protected tenant: "I slept with my grandfather in the same bed"

The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court recently rejected a man's request to be recognized as a continuing protected tenant after his late grandfather, in a two-room apartment on Malkhei Yisrael Street. Judge Dorit Feinstein found it hard to believe that the two actually lived together in the tiny apartment and ordered him to vacate.

It is an extremely small apartment, whose toilet unit is located outside. The shower is located above the toilet, so one must sit on the toilet while bathing. The eviction lawsuit was filed by a registered association that owns the property. The defendant is the grandson of the protected tenant, who passed away in July 2023. According to his version, he lived with his grandfather starting in June 2020 — well beyond the six months required by law to continue as a protected tenant — and the apartment served as the center of his life.

To prove his claims, the grandson presented a photo in which he and his grandfather are seen sleeping together in a double bed. He summoned an acquaintance to testify, who stated in an affidavit that he visited the apartment many times and "the defendant was always there." The grandson argued that under the described circumstances, he became a protected tenant in the apartment after his grandfather, and therefore should not be evicted.

On the other hand, the association argued that the conditions for recognizing the grandson as a protected tenant were not met at all, among other things, that he did not have another apartment besides the property in question. It was argued in this context that the defendant could have lived in his parents' house or with his aunt, where they prepared a special room for him before his grandfather's death, so that he could stay near him. The plaintiff demanded reasonable usage fees in the amount of 4,000 shekels for every month he remained in the apartment.

Judge Feinstein did reject the association's argument regarding the condition concerning the lack of another apartment, but determined on the other hand that the grandson did not prove the fulfillment of the other condition, which is living for half a year alongside his late grandfather before his death. "From the totality of the evidence, it appears that the grandfather, being an elderly and widowed man, was alone in the apartment most of the time," she wrote.

She did not give significant weight to the testimony of the acquaintance, who admitted during his cross-examination that he visited the apartment only in the late afternoon hours, and therefore this is only partial knowledge which does not prove that the defendant actually lived in the apartment. She was impressed that the photo presented of the latter sleeping with his grandfather in bed was "biased and intended to convince that the two got along together in a very limited space."

However, his main failure lies, according to her, in the fact that he did not summon his grandfather's caregiver to testify. It was clarified that this is someone who worked in the deceased's home for years, two or three days a week, and should have known the defendant if he indeed lived permanently in the apartment.

The verdict stated: "The caregiver should have seen another person's belongings, more food in the refrigerator, additional toiletries, and other signs that the deceased was not living in the place alone. The fact that the defendant refrained from summoning her to testify, as an independent witness, is held against him."

Therefore, and since he did not prove that he actually lived with his grandfather, it was determined that the defendant is not a protected tenant and must vacate the apartment within two months. The association's demand for monthly usage fees in the amount of 4,000 shekels was rejected, and the judge ordered the grandson to pay it only reasonable protected rent, estimated at a few thousand shekels per year, plus legal fees of 15,000 shekels.