Why did they get worse with the renter on the subject of discrepancy
In matters of tenant non-compliance, we are witnessing a clear tendency to charge the landlord for the benefit of the tenant.
It seems that the legislature assumed that the information regarding the condition of the apartment was known to the landlord and therefore placed the full weight of the responsibility in this matter on his shoulders.
The legislature also assumed that in the Israeli market it is difficult for the tenant to find a reliable place to live, which leaves the power with the landlord.
The legislature may have wanted to be more stringent because it could slip into danger for those renting the apartment.
It is also possible that for reasons of the economic benefit it is better to place the responsibility on the shoulders of the landlord than on that of the tenant.
In Hebrew law, Maimonides is stricter and rules that “the one who sells land to his friend … and is found to be defective, the tenant may return it even after a few years, which is a mistaken transaction.”
It can be said that the Israeli legal system imposes the responsibility for adapting the apartment to what was agreed on by the landlord while reducing the tenant’s responsibility, only in cases where he actually knew about the non-compliance.
This approach even makes sense when it comes to the approach of ‘transaction efficiency’; the economic aspect in law.
Simply in most cases, the knowledge of the landlord allows for the best ability to adjust the apartment at a minimum cost as opposed to the tenant.