October 15, 2026
The file of old rents has returned to the forefront of attention, once again igniting the heated debate between landlords and tenants, against the backdrop of demands to suspend eviction lawsuits, the implementation of judgments, and legal deadlines. On the other hand, the Owners Syndicate expressed a categorical rejection of any comprehensive freeze, considering it a detour that enshrines the extension of lease contracts at the expense of rights holders.
In a statement issued by it in response to the “National Committee for Tenants,” the Landlords Syndicate warned that demands to suspend eviction lawsuits and implement judgments mean “forcibly re-imposing the extension,” and once again blaming landlords for the state’s failure to address the entire housing crisis, stressing that the landlord does not bear the burden of disrupting committees or faltering financing of the aid fund, and this should not be used as an excuse to rob him of his rights indefinitely.
The union explained that the tenant who adheres to the provisions of the law, and who annually submits an application to benefit from the assistance fund in accordance with the rules, enjoys the necessary legal protection, but this protection in no way justifies suspending lawsuits and judgments comprehensively and without discrimination between the legal positions of the two parties.
The union pointed out the humanitarian and livelihood dimension of the owners, noting the presence of large categories of retirees and the elderly who depend entirely on the revenues of their properties to secure their livelihoods and health care, and affirming its categorical rejection of reducing the concept of social justice to protecting one party at the expense of the other. She added that individual ownership cannot constitute a treasury to finance housing policies that the state is unable to manage and finance, stressing that the primary responsibility lies with the state in finding housing solutions and paying due aid.
In a related context, the union considered that invoking Article 58 does not justify suspending all eviction lawsuits, as they relate exclusively to the tenant covered by the Fund’s contributions, stressing that deciding on the scope of its application rests exclusively with the judicial authority, with the necessity of preserving the consensual contracts concluded between the two parties with all their inclusions and mutual obligations.
The Owners Syndicate concluded its statement by sending an official invitation to the Parliamentary Administration and Justice Committee to listen to the owners’ concerns and involve them in any legislative discussion that affects their rights, reiterating its rejection of any settlements that reproduce the extension under glamorous titles such as suspending deadlines and rulings. She called for the necessity of issuing fair legislation that provides effective and funded solutions, and respects the rights of both parties and the validity of judicial rulings, instead of prolonging disputes, stressing that protecting the needy tenant remains the state’s sole responsibility by activating the fund and providing aid, not by diminishing the rights of owners.
