Gittin 53a: If someone damages property in an invisible manner (e.g. he makes someone else’s food tamei), if he does so accidentally he is exempt; but if it is intentional, he is liable. Chizkiyah said that, according to strict Torah law, he would be liable in both cases… Rabbi Yochanan said that according to Torah law, both are exempt, but the Sages made the intentional perpetrator liable so that people should not go around with impunity making other people’s food tamei.
גיטין נג ע”א: אמר חזקיה: דבר תורה אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד ־ חייבֹ, מאי טעמא? היזק שאינו ניכר שמיה היזק, ומה טעם אמרו בשוגג פטור? כדי שיודיעו. אי הכי, אפילו במזיד נמיִ השתא לאוזוקי קא מכוין, אודועי לא מודע ליה? ור׳ יוחנן אמר: דבר תורה אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד ־ פטורֹ מאי טעמא? היזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק, ומה טעם אמרו במזיד חייב? שלא יהא כל אחד ואחד הולך ומטמא טהרותיו של חבירו, ואומר פטור אני.
Once, there was a shul that sold seats, charging a higher price for the seats closest to the east wall. At that time, there was space between those seats and the wall. Later, the congregation grew, and the gabbai decided to install new benches in that space along the east wall. These seats were then sold for a high price.
Those who had bought the original eastern seats were now in the second row. They felt this was unfair, given the high price they had paid specifically to sit on “Mizrach Vant.” They argued that the new seats should be given to them, and the second row sold to the newcomers. The gabbai countered that they still had the exact seats they had paid for, so they had no right to complain. Unable to settle the dispute, they presented their arguments before a Rav.
The Rav thought for a while and then said, “Moshe changed the name of Hoshea bin Nun to Yehoshua. Where did he get the yud? The Gemara in Sanhedrin 107a, quoted by Rashi on Bereishis 17:5, says that when Hashem took the yud from Sarai and changed her name to Sarah, the yud complained for years, until finally Hashem added it to the name of Hoshea to make it Yehoshua. But we don’t find that the hei complained that it went from being the first letter to the second letter in Yehoshua’s name. From this we learn that when someone is added in front of you and you become second, you have no right to complain.”
Source: Rabbi Shmuel Fishbain of White Lake
[According to the opinion that invisible damage is called damage (היזק שאינו ניכר שמיה היזק), the gabbai definitely caused their seats to go down in value and is therefore liable.
Even according to the opinion that invisible damage is not called damage (היזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק), which is how we pasken, perhaps here it is considered that the gabbai was מזיד – he intentionally devalued their seats.
Even if not, perhaps here it is considered visibly damaged (היזק ניכר) because there is now another row of seats in front.
Also, even if we say היזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק, here the people are considered to be renting their seats for life. They don’t actually own part of the shul; rather, they have a right to the seats closest to the Mizrach Vant every day for the rest of their lives. And since these are no longer the easternmost seats, the gabbai is not continuing to give them what they paid for.
As to the psak of the rav in the story, the response could be that we never find that being at the front of a tzaddik’s name is more valuable than being in the middle, whereas here, it was clear to all that the Mizrach Vant seats were more valuable.]
Read and Remember 