08.11.2021
In a number of leased premises owned by co-owners, the rent is collected by only one of them. Co-owners could distribute the property among themselves, even if they own shares jointly. One of the owners can get a court decision against the tenant and restore the ownership of the rented premises. In this case, he is obliged to inform the tenant about the status of the property and that he is the beneficiary of the premises. This is done regardless of the status of the tenant. The court may reject the owner’s application. For example, if he proceeds to evict without mentioning the distribution and the issue of joint ownership in court. In every legal proceeding relating to real estate, all interested parties must participate as parties. This is necessary in order for them to be heard in accordance with the requirements of justice.
The issue of co-ownership is related to the proper notice that the owner must provide to the tenant. The Rent Control Act requires legal notices. For this reason, when the original owner changes, the new owner must properly notify the tenant of the change.
The Rent Control Court issued another judgment on 10/29/2021. A situation was considered in which not all co-owners were included in the application for eviction of a legal tenant in order to return the leased premises to the owner. So, the company claimed that it is the owner of the store and wants to return the ownership.The organization cited a lease agreement between the company and the tenant, as well as service of an eviction notice. The company believed that its claim was justified and that issuing an eviction order would cause less inconvenience than not issuing one, but did not provide specific details.
The tenant referred to the existence of a lease agreement. He noted that he was a legitimate tenant and took possession of the premises by acquiring the previous tenant’s business. He also cited the history of the lease, stressing that he had been approached in the past for various reasons to repossess the premises. In his opinion, this indicates that the owner’s claim was not genuine, but was motivated by something else. Furthermore, he contested the existence of a proper notice, since he was given 21 days’ notice instead of one month’s notice, as required by law. During the review of the application for eviction, it was revealed from the testimony of the owner that there are other co-owners and that this owner manages only a small share of the store.
The Court emphasized that when the property is in indivisible shares, it is assumed that none of the co-owners has a greater right of ownership than the others. The non-participation of all co-owners in the proceedings was characterized as a material procedural violation, which invalidates the proceedings from the outset.
The court further noted that in the event of a change in the original owner, as was the case in this case, the new owner must inform the tenant of the change.The court added that the tenant did not appear to have been properly notified in accordance with the law. In the present case, the issue at issue does not relate to a demand for payment of rent, but to an eviction order sought to repossess the premises for use by the company. Under the circumstances, the omission was significant and could not be corrected. The court denied the company’s claims.
