Background: The Dispute in Lod
The ruling issued in July 2025 by the Central-Lod District Court, which was recently reviewed in a motion for stay of execution before the Supreme Court, addresses the core of a contemporary and contentious issue: the right of an apartment owner to oppose an urban renewal (“evacuation and construction”) project versus the broader public interest.
The proceedings centered around a residential complex in the city of Lod, where 92% of apartment owners signed an agreement with a developer, in accordance with the Evacuation and Construction (Promotion of Urban Renewal Projects) Law, 5766–2006. Two apartment owners refused to join. Consequently, the remaining residents petitioned the court to declare them “refusing tenants”, in order to appoint a representative authorized to sign the agreement on their behalf.
The petitioner—one of the two dissenting owners—argued that her refusal stemmed from justified reasons: the replacement apartment lacks three air exposures (directions), which adversely affects her due to her medical condition. She further claimed that the benefits provided under the agreement were unfair, that the contract was flawed, economically unviable, and that it lacked sufficient guarantees.
The developer, supported by the majority of the apartment owners, contended that the refusal was based on irrelevant considerations and should be deemed unreasonable.
District Court Ruling: The Refusal Is Unreasonable[1]
The District Court accepted the claim and held that:
1. The statutory majority required by law had been achieved;
2. The objections raised were unreasonable, as the project had proven economic viability and was approved by planning authorities;
3. There was no discrimination in the distribution of benefits—the differences between apartments stemmed from legal property rights rather than improper favoritism;
4. The developer acted appropriately and in good faith;
5. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her medical condition necessitated a specific apartment layout, and in fact, had rejected reasonable offers.
The court determined that the petitioner qualifies as an “refusing tenant” within the meaning of the law and that her opposition constituted an artificial barrier to a lawfully approved project. Accordingly, the court appointed an attorney to sign the agreement on her behalf and ordered her to pay legal costs in the amount of NIS 50,000.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court – Motion for Stay of Execution
The petitioner filed an appeal along with a motion for a stay of execution, arguing that continuing the project would cause her irreparable harm (eviction from her home, obligations to third parties). She further argued that the appeal had a high likelihood of success and that the balance of convenience favored her position.
Conversely, the respondents argued that there was no justification for delaying the project, which involves dilapidated buildings lacking secure rooms (Mamad), and that further delay would cause significant harm to the remaining residents.
The Supreme Court, per Justice Dafna Barak-Erez, denied the motion. The Court ruled that:
* The general rule is that filing an appeal does not automatically stay execution (pursuant to Regulation 145(a) of the Civil Procedure Regulations). The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate a high likelihood of success on appeal and that the balance of convenience tilts in their favor.
* The balance of convenience—being the primary consideration—favors advancing the project. Delay would harm the vast majority of apartment owners, while the petitioner’s financial claims could be addressed, if necessary, via monetary compensation.
* The appeal, based primarily on financial—not fundamental—arguments, was not likely to succeed. In general, economic claims do not justify delaying a project of public importance, particularly where the petitioner does not fundamentally oppose the project itself.
* Delaying execution could seriously harm the other residents, the developer, and third parties, especially given the unsafe condition of the existing structures.
That said, the Court ordered that the appeal be heard as expeditiously as possible, recognizing the sensitivity of matters involving residential homes.
Conclusions and Legal Opinion
1. The Legal Status of the Refusing Tenant – A Developing Definition
This ruling is consistent with a clear judicial trend: opposition by an apartment owner to an urban renewal project will be scrutinized rigorously and will not be deemed legitimate unless it is based on genuine, substantive, and proven claims. The term “refusing tenant” does not refer merely to a party who refuses, but rather to one whose refusal is unreasonable, aimed at delaying the project or extorting undue benefits.
2. The Importance of Factual and Evidentiary Foundations
Courts expect dissenting tenants to present concrete evidence for their objections—be it medical, economic, or planning-related. Vague or unsupported claims will be rejected.
3. Balance of Convenience – A Decisive Factor in Motions for Stay of Execution
Where harm can be quantified and compensated financially, courts are reluctant to grant sweeping stay-of-execution motions, especially when delay could harm the broader community of residents.
4. Emphasis on Equality and Uniformity – With Practical Flexibility
The court’s finding that the benefits were not discriminatory—even if not identical—reflects an understanding of the complex legal and property landscape in shared buildings. Comparisons must be made on a substantive, not technical, basis.
In essence, the ruling illustrates judicial policy when dealing with objectors in urban renewal projects: where a clear majority of residents support the project, and the dissenting party was offered reasonable alternatives, courts tend to limit the veto power of the minority.
The focus is placed on substantive review of the reasonableness of the objection, balancing any potential harm to the dissenting tenant against the public benefit. Where objections are primarily based on personal convenience or financial gain, courts are more inclined to deem them unreasonable—especially if fair remedies or compensation can be offered.
Conclusion
This case underscores the tension between the rights of an individual tenant and the collective good in urban renewal projects. The Supreme Court sends a clear message: a tenant who fails to raise substantive and well-founded objections cannot obstruct a large-scale initiative designed to improve the living conditions of the majority.
The judicial approach seeks to prevent extortion and unjustified delays while preserving a balanced consideration of property rights and the right to adequate housing.
In an era where evacuation and reconstruction projects have become a cornerstone of national planning policy, the judiciary is drawing clear boundaries on the right to object—not to deny rights, but to guide their responsible exercise.
For further information please contact:
Hanan Efraim, Adv. Amit kovos, Adv.
Office: 03-691-6600 Office: 03-691-6600
Email: hanan@ekw.co.il E-mail: amit@ekw.co.il
[1] C.A. (Central District) 63837-03-22 Aharon Itzkovich v. Tal Mordechai Naveh (Nevo, July 11, 2025).