“Lebanon Debate” – Pia Maria Eid
As February 28 approaches, the old rental file is entering a critical phase with the expiration of the exceptional extension that governed these contracts for decades with symbolic allowances. In light of widespread confusion and rumors about “displacement” and “forced eviction,” the legal reality is different from what is being circulated, as the law specifies a clear path for the transition of these contracts to the normal contractual framework, without any text that permits the arbitrary removal of tenants, placing both parties before specific legal options.
The legal advisor to the Owners Syndicate, Lawyer Charbel Cherfan, confirmed in an interview with “Lebanon Debate” that “the exceptional period for old lease contracts ends on February 28 of this year, explaining that this entitlement extends to residential rents.”
Sharfan pointed out that the Rent Law issued in 2014 and amended in 2017 set clear extension deadlines, amounting to 9 years for non-beneficiaries of the fund and 12 years for its beneficiaries, which determines the legal framework for the end of the exceptional extension according to the categories covered by the law.
He explained that the deadline that ends on February 28 concerns non-beneficiaries of the fund, which means that the lease contract becomes a free contract after this date, that is, subject to the provisions of the Law of Obligations and Contracts, and not a permanent contract as is rumored. He added, “Liberating the contract does not mean forcibly evicting the tenant, but rather a return to normal contractual logic.”
From this standpoint, Sharfan considered that “some parties adopt intimidation rhetoric by portraying the expiration of the extension as if it were a mass displacement, while the reality,” according to him, “puts the tenant in front of two options: either to remain in the rental with a new contract and a fair allowance according to the prevailing prices, or to secure alternative housing.”
Sharfan focused on the large differences in rental fees, considering that “paying 9 or 10 dollars annually for an apartment under current prices is considered almost free occupancy, especially in areas where the monthly rent reaches 400 or 500 dollars.” He pointed out, “Some old tenants are still paying between 500,000 and one million liras annually for large apartments, which, as he put it, constitutes an injustice against the owner.”
On the other hand, he stressed that “the owner is not a charitable organization, but rather a citizen who invested and built to secure his income from rent, just as the tenant needs income to secure his living.” He added, “The right to housing, even though it is a fundamental right, is no less sacred than the right to property guaranteed in the Lebanese Constitution.”
In the context of solutions, Sharfan believed that “addressing the housing crisis is the responsibility of the state, not the landlord,” criticizing the latter’s responsibility for the consequences of neglecting housing policies for decades.
He pointed out, “The state has tools, including the lease-to-own project, which allows the tenant to move from renting to ownership without direct financial burdens on the state, through a partnership with the private sector and providing tax exemptions.”
Sharfan pointed out that, according to him, “the tenants’ current objections were not accompanied by actual pressure on the state to approve housing policies, as the demands were directed mainly towards the landlord.” He also recalled that “since the 1990s, the General Housing Corporation has granted more than 130,000 loans, in addition to special housing programs for military and security institutions.”
Sharfan concluded by stressing that the lease contract, according to Lebanese law and all civil laws, is a temporary contract with a specific amount and duration, and that the long extension was an exception imposed by the circumstances of the war, and the time has come to end it. He said: “On February 28, no one will be thrown into the street. The tenant either stays with a fair contract, or secures another housing, but continuing free occupancy has become something that is neither legally permissible nor logical.”
