Heineken no longer wants to do business with its tenant Tapperij on Kerkplein in Meppel. Tapperij is behind in paying the rent. According to the brewer, the rent debt has risen to more than 113,000 euros. The case must be cleared, says Heineken and went to court on Tuesday.
The owner of the building at Kerkplein 10 is Leo de Boer. Heineken leases this to Heineken, which in turn leases it to Tapperij bv. This construction has existed since December 2018. Heineken has also lent money to the Tapperij. The repayment of that amount also stagnates.
In November, the parties already went to court for the same thing. Then Tapperij came up with a buyer. This brought new light to the possibility of paying off the arrears. The judge took this into account in the decision and allowed Tapperij to keep its place in the building.
The Tapperij experienced major setbacks at the time, partly due to the corona measures. In April 2022, the café had to close again. This time because of asbestos floating around. Owner of the Tapperij Ben de Valk then decided to sell everything.
That turned out not to be easy. The rent is high, the building is not insulated and there is a significant overdue maintenance. Finally, De Valk found the new owner in Michel Savelberg. Savelberg also manages Club Civer in Meppel.
With the sale, the debt with Heineken could be repaid. But according to De Valk, the brewery frustrated the purchase by whispering that the selling price was very high. The sales price still went down by 50,000 euros.
Heineken strongly denies the manipulation. Nothing has been whispered, but attempts have been made to get information from the new owner. “It is normal that he comes with a business plan that is assessed by us. He came with a handwritten draft that we could do nothing with,” says lawyer Harm Heynen on behalf of Heineken.
Savelberg is said to have stated to Heineken that he has not signed an agreement with the Tapperij. In principle, the Tapperij must honor their agreements with Heineken, says Heynen. “And if they have found a successor who has Heineken’s approval, then it will be different.” But according to Heynen, there is no successor.
The court will rule in two weeks.