We learned in the previous article that an apartment that is dangerous to inhabit is equivalent to a collapsed apartment. As a result, you, the tenant had the right to vacate the apartment you had previously rented and demand the return of your checks, or alternatively to force your landlord to evict the Arabs to whom he rented the neighboring apartment after he had already rented your apartment to you. However, your landlord did not act as he was required, and refused to return your checks, in spite of your request to vacate. You did not stick up for your rights and you remained in the apartment for the duration of your contract, living in fear and without use of your open porch due to your justified fear. We left unanswered the question if you are entitled to reimbursement of a portion of your rent and if yes, how much.
Answer
A basic responsum that deals with the first issue is a responsum (39) of the Maharam of Padova, that is cited by SA (CM 321, 1). A person rented a store that was licensed to allow the proprietor to lend with interest to gentiles, for seven years. At some point in the rental period the local ruler issued an edict that forbade lending with interest without a security deposit. This resulted in a decline in the renter's activity and cut into his earnings. For nine months the renter tried to have the decree rescinded. After nine months he realized that his efforts were destined to failure and he then demanded a reduction in his rent for the previous nine months since he was not able to derive full use of the rental. Support for his demand was brought from a ruling of the Mishna (BM 105B) that if someone rented a field and the crop was damaged by grasshoppers, a fate that befell all of the local farmers, the renter is entitled to a reduction in his rent.
The Maharam ruled that his situation is not comparable to this Mishna because in the case of the Mishna the plague of the grasshoppers happened after the renter had invested money and effort to grow a crop. Therefore, ending the rental during the year the grasshoppers attacked was not a viable alternative since if the renter vacated at that time his entire investment in that year would have gone down the drain, whereas if he remained until the end of the year, he could salvage part of the crop. Therefore, the Mishna ruled that the renter was entitled to a rent reduction for that year, since his failure to vacate was justifiable.
However, in the Maharam's situation, the lender would not have suffered any loss if he had exercised his right to vacate the rental as soon as it became less profitable. Therefore, if he really wanted to leave, the renter should have immediately informed the landlord of his desire to vacate. He was entitled to do so since the store became less worthwhile due to the ruler's edict and thus their agreement had the status of a mekach to'us for the period that followed the edict, a state which enables the renter to void the original contract. When someone continues using an item which he could have returned since the sale constitutes a mekach to'us, it shows us that he does not wish to cancel the agreement. Thus, the Maharam ruled that the renter was not entitled to a reduction in his rent, since his actions showed that he preferred to continue the rental despite the ruler's edict.
In your situation you did ask to cancel your contract but you were refused by the owner who held your checks, which you could not legally cancel in Israel.
In general, even though a customer who uses a blemished object after discovering the blemish is not entitled to cancel the sale, however if the customer informed the seller of his desire to void the sale, the consensus opinion (See Mishpatei Yosher (volume 1 page 448)) is that he does not forfeit his right to cancel the sale.
The reasoning is that the reason one forfeits the right to cancel if he uses the damaged object after discovering the defect is because he thereby shows that he prefers to continue the agreement in spite of the blemish. Therefore, if he states clearly prior to using the object that he is not waving his right to cancel the sale, he retains this right, in spite of his subsequent use. This is especially pronounced in your case since you were not aware of your halachic rights. The Aruch Hashulchan (CM 232, 4) agrees with the consensus opinion specifically for people who are ignorant of the relevant Torah law.
Based on the above, we have determined: 1-that by continuing to live in the apartment you did not forfeit your right to cancel, and, 2-that you are entitled to a reduction in your rent just like the case of the Mishna where grasshoppers damaged the renter's crop.
The remaining question is how much you have to pay as rent since your original contract is void. In the previously cited responsum of the Maharam, he states that whenever possible we try to avoid cancellation of a contract since it is very difficult to arrive at a precise figure for damages, which is certainly true in your situation.
In determining the amount you must pay, we must first point out that since legally you occupied the apartment without a contract, the amount you must pay is the monetary value of the benefit that you derived from your use of the apartment. This is based on the law of a yoreid. If yoreid A, without having been granted permission, improved the value of B's property, B owes A the lesser of the two amounts: the costs that A incurred, or B's benefit from A's improvement.
Similarly, you were essentially coerced to remain in the apartment and to benefit from living there. Therefore, the amount you must pay is the lesser of your landlord's loss or your benefit. Your landlord's loss is the amount he could have earned had he rented the apartment in its present circumstances with its Arab neighbors. Since the best price he could get is probably by renting to other foreign workers, this amount can be determined by surveying how much agencies that rent apartments for foreign workers pay for an apartment like this one.
However, the amount that the landlord could have earned from renting to foreign workers is immaterial here since the price you have to pay based on the benefit your received is certainly less than that, and you only have to pay the lesser of the two amounts.
Another case that is discussed by the Gemara (BK 20A) and SA (CM 391, 8) where we see that a person who benefited against his will must pay the amount that he benefited and not the amount that the owner could have earned is where a person left food in the public domain that was eaten by a passing animal. The ruling of the Gemara and SA is that the owner of the animal is liable for the benefit that he derived from his animal's eating of the food and not the value of the actual food that was eaten. The benefit is the value of a similar amount of the cheapest food available for animals. From this case the Chasam Sofer (res. CM 180) deduced that if a person unknowingly purchases and consumes non-kosher wine (stam yenom) he is liable only for the benefit that he derived from the wine.
Thus, we have determined that the amount you must pay is the amount you would have paid for the apartment, given the circumstances at the time you resided there.
In conclusion: The amount you needed to pay is the amount that you would have paid to rent this apartment in its degraded state and whatever you paid that is above this amount must be returned to you by the landlord.
