Sage regarding discrepancies the renter knew about
The tenant cannot rely on the non-recognition he knew about them when signing the lease. Apparently, the matter is clear, but in fact it is possible that the lease is limited and does not contain all the information regarding the condition of the apartment and its defects.
There is no requirement in the law regarding the source of the tenant’s knowledge of the non-compliance at the time of the conclusion of the lease. It does not matter if the tenant knew about the non-compliance because a third party told him, perhaps the previous tenants, or the landlord himself or a plumber who has already visited the apartment several times. In any case, the result is that the landlord has benefited from it and does not have to correct the non-compliance.
At the same time the knowledge of the tenant is subjective and practical. And this is not an objective knowledge of the reasonable person. The tenant should have known about the incompatibility as a reasonable tenant. The requirement for practical knowledge can be softened, perhaps in the case of ‘closing one’s eyes’, which is usually compared to knowing in good faith.
The provision of section 6 (c) (1) of the Lease Law is interesting, which stipulates that the tenant will not be entitled to rely on a non-compliance in the event that he knew of the non-compliance at the time of the conclusion of the lease. It is strangely apparent that oral knowledge prevails over what is agreed in writing. What’s more, the legislature took the trouble to emphasize that a lease must be executed in writing, even when a tenant transfers his rights to an alternative tenant or sub-tenant, and that this provision cannot be stipulated under section 25 of the Tenancy Law.
For example, if a potential tenant finds out about problems in the apartment he visited with the current tenant of the apartment and told him that the apartment has moisture problems in the winter and there is leakage from the ceiling and that he even contacted the landlord in this matter and the landlord refused to make repairs. The potential tenant did not share with the landlord because he knows about these issues. And the landlord and potential tenant have signed a lease in which the landlord states in detail that the apartment has no dampness issues. In such a case the alleged tenant will not be entitled to come up with a claim of non-compliance with the landlord.