Not Every 'Recalcitrant Tenant' Is Stubborn: How to Protect Your Rights Without Alienating Neighbors

In Pinui-Binui (evacuation and construction) complexes in Bat Yam, on HaYarkon Street in Tel Aviv, in the Dafna complex near Ichilov Hospital, and in the HaRoeh complex in Ramat Gan, high-profile disputes have recently erupted. These cases centered on 'recalcitrant tenants' (dayar sarvan) in urban renewal projects who refused to move forward with the project. In the end, however, their claims were accepted, and it was determined that justice was on their side all along.

The courts rejected the appeals of neighbors and developers, ruling that a TAMA 38 project should not be forced upon a recalcitrant tenant at any cost. Even when an overwhelming majority of tenants support a project, this does not justify its approval if there are material defects that could jeopardize the rights of apartment owners.

Case Studies

• Bat Yam: The Tel Aviv District Court upheld the decision of the Inspector of Land Registration, refusing to force the project's execution on apartment owners who raised valid objections.

• Ramat Gan: In May 2026, the District Court determined that granting a uniform area addition to apartments of different sizes (between 60-105 sqm) constitutes material discrimination. The project was approved only subject to a balancing payment of about 140,000 shekels to the tenant who refused.

• Tel Aviv (HaYarkon St.): Judge Limor Bibi of the Tel Aviv District Court rejected the neighbors' appeal, approving the inspector's decision that the tenant was right in his refusal because his designated balcony was 40% smaller than those of the other neighbors. Compensation and expenses totaling about 680,000 shekels were awarded in his favor.

• Tel Aviv (Dafna complex): The project was stalled for a long time because of a single recalcitrant tenant. The developer filed a lawsuit against her, but during the legal struggle, it turned out that the developer had secretly granted significant benefits to other tenants to obtain their signatures, violating the principle of equality. This discovery gave legal legitimacy to her refusal and forced the developer to act with full transparency.

---

Adv. Noam Kolodny from the Kolodny & Co. law firm, an expert in planning and construction and real estate law, provides insights on the rights of tenants who oppose Pinui-Binui projects.

Is every apartment owner who opposes a project considered recalcitrant?

No. The law distinguishes between an apartment owner who raises a substantive objection and one who refuses without reasonable justification. The court asks not only whether the tenant objected, but why. Only when an objection is intended to achieve a personal advantage at the expense of others might the owner be considered recalcitrant.

How to conduct oneself with the tenants' representation?

It is important to distinguish between objecting to the project and objecting to the way it is carried out. Raise all reservations in writing at once, in an orderly manner, and avoid ultimatums. Use constructive language: 'I will sign when an answer is given to the following issues.'

Which documents should be prepared?

Before negotiations, collect a Tabu extract, the apartment plan, building permits, and documents indicating personal circumstances (medical certificates or proof of business activity). Knowing the facts makes your discourse professional.

Is it better to act alone or together with other neighbors?

Joint action is generally preferable. An organized group enjoys greater bargaining power. However, be careful to avoid creating a camp of opponents that acts emotionally or spreads unsubstantiated information.

When might the court determine that recalcitrance is justified?

Courts recognize that an objection may be justified when the proposed consideration deviates unreasonably from what is customary, when the developer fails to provide sufficient guarantees, or when the project causes unusual harm to a specific tenant due to their personal, medical, or functional condition.