- 10
- Apr.
- 2025
The issue of former tenants of residential properties remains stalled. While waiting for a resolution, it is the property owners who are bearing the brunt of this paralysis, penalized by a poorly defined law on old rental agreements.
Facing the deadline for the liberalization of residential leases, many former tenants are turning to the courts to delay the return of properties. Some are even demanding departure compensations to which they are no longer legally entitled.
As a result, property owners find themselves powerless, forced to endure the progressive devaluation of their real estate assets, without being able to recover or make use of them. Enacted on December 28, 2014, and later amended in 2017, the law on the gradual liberalization of residential leases concluded before 1999 provided for a nine-year transition period, during which rents would be increased, leading to the complete termination of the old contracts. It also included the creation of an aid fund for former tenants in precarious situations, financed by the state.
But ten years later, the deadlock continues. And the legal uncertainty keeps fueling tensions between landlords and former tenants.
The Dispute Between Landlords and Tenants
The conflict between landlords and tenants began to escalate at the end of 2023. The dispute concerns the starting date for calculating the nine-year grace period granted by the law. Landlords argue that this period began with the law’s entry into force on December 28, 2014, whereas tenants claim it only started with the law’s amendment in 2017.
The dispute over the three years of additional occupancy began when the law was amended eight years ago. But it only emerged in court cases at the end of 2023, "after the contracts had expired and the occupancy became legally unjustified," according to a judicial source who requested anonymity.
Adding insult to injury, simply obtaining a registration application number — even without meeting the required conditions — allows tenants to be treated as beneficiaries of the fund and thus enjoy three additional years of occupancy.
A Support Fund for Former Tenants
Claiming economic hardship, many former tenants have quickly argued before the courts their inability to vacate the properties, asserting that the conditions for applying the December 28, 2014, law were not met. The reason: the support fund intended to assist low-income tenants has never been operational. Since it was never funded, no applicants were able to benefit from the intended assistance, which further worsened the tenants’ precariousness and intensified the blockage of the eviction process.
Moreover, the law grants tenants an additional three-year extension after the end of the initial transition period, bringing the total occupancy duration to twelve years instead of the originally planned nine.
Nothing but Pretexts
According to a 2019 study by the Collective of Leased Building Owners, based on figures from the Ministry of Finance, only 13,000 tenants registered for the fund out of an estimated 64,000.
However, since simply obtaining a registration number — without even meeting the eligibility criteria — is enough to be treated as a beneficiary, tenants can automatically extend their occupancy by three more years, much to the dismay of landlords, who denounce a legal loophole exploited to delay evictions.
What Does Case Law Say?
A lawyer interviewed by This is Beirut explained that case law could begin to emerge once the Court of Cassation rules on the issue. At that point, the ruling would have binding authority, carrying the force of res judicata.
Until then, decisions issued by the Beirut Court of Appeal and the Beirut single judge are heading in divergent directions.
Comments