Listen to the article
Civil Judge Alaa Bashir, overseeing rental disputes in Metn, issued a ruling declaring the nine-year extension period under the new rental law to end on December 28, 2023. The ruling states that the tenant will be residing without legal justification after this date and orders him to vacate the rented property and return it vacant to the landlord. Failure to comply will result in a coercive fine of 15 million Lebanese pounds for each day of delay.
In this context, the ruling aligns with other judgments, including those by the Court of Appeals in Jounieh and Beirut, which also recognize the end of the nine-year extension period. With these rulings, the new rental law program for residential properties is nearing its end for tenants not benefiting from the fund. Meanwhile, beneficiaries are granted an additional three-year extension until December 28, 2026. In the details of the ruling, Judge Bashir addressed the issue of applicability between 2014 and 2017.
Judge Bashir explained that the legislator intended to grant tenants, under the conditions of the law, a maximum period of 12 years from the enforcement date in 2014, whether covered by the fund or borne by the tenant. Arguing that the law only became effective in 2017 creates an unjust disparity among tenants, with some having their extension period start in 2014 while others start in 2017. This interpretation is legally inconsistent, as the law enacted in 2014 has been in effect since December 28, 2014, and it is the relevant law for determining timelines.
For tenants not benefiting from the fund, the ruling establishes that the extension period ended on December 28, 2023. This 9-year period began from the date of enforcement, in accordance with Article 15 of the law. The ruling clarifies that the 2014 law is a standalone law, while the 2017 law serves as an amendment effective from 2017. However, the time of the extension period has been fixed and applicable since 2014.
Judge Alaa Bashir addresses whether the extension period for residential rental contracts begins with the 2014 rental law or with the 2017 amendment. Article 15 of the first law, enacted on May 9, 2014, stipulates: “Rental contracts for residential properties shall be extended for up to nine years from the date of enforcement of this law, provided that…”. Meanwhile, Article 15 of the second law, enacted on February 28, 2017, states: “Rental contracts for residential properties shall be extended for up to nine years, and up to twelve years for those benefiting from the fund, from the date of this law…”. Both articles specify that the extension period starts from the date of enforcement of their respective laws. However, while the first article sets a uniform extension period of nine years, the second article differentiates between tenants who benefit from the fund and those who do not. Tenants benefiting from the fund are granted an extension of up to twelve years, whereas those who do not benefit receive an extension of up to nine years.
This raises the question of which law governs the start of the nine-year extension period. Clarifying this will determine its end date and allow the court to address the plaintiff’s request to compel the defendant to vacate the rented property.
According to Bashir, although Law No. 2 of February 28, 2017, is an “Amendment Law” designed solely to revise certain provisions of the law enacted on May 9, 2014—considered a standalone law—its amendments do not address the start date for the nine-year extension period. Its provisions apply to cases filed between December 29, 2014, and February 28, 2017. However, it does not address the start date for the nine-year extension period, which consistently begins from the enforcement date of the law enacted on May 9, 2014, namely December 28, 2014. As for the twelve-year extension period granted to tenants benefiting from the fund, this pertains to a new provision that must be applied with respect to the duration. However, the start date for this extension period remains unchanged, beginning from the effective date of the law passed on May 9, 2014. The rental law passed on February 28, 2017, only revised conflicting provisions but did not alter the beginning of the extension period, which remains tied to the original enforcement date.
Arguing that the extension period begins with the enforcement date of the 2017 law would extend the period beyond nine years, approaching twelve years. This interpretation contradicts the legislator’s intent and creates an unjust disparity among tenants.
For tenants facing eviction under the May 9, 2014 law, the nine-year extension period ends on December 28, 2023, starting from the enforcement date of December 28, 2014, as outlined in Article 15 of that law. Meanwhile, for those under the February 28, 2017 law, the nine-year period would have concluded on February 28, 2026. Article 15 of the 2017 law also specifies that the extension period begins “from the date of enforcement of this law,” aligning with Article 15 of the May 9, 2014 law.
Regarding the inclusion of the phrase “from the date of enforcement of this law” in Article 15 of both laws, this highlights a procedural error in the amendment process. Instead of the February 28, 2017 law making adjustments only to the specific provisions of the May 9, 2014 law that required amendment, the entire 2014 law was rephrased, with changes applied where needed.
For instance, Article 20 was amended to reduce the annual rate from 5% to 4% of the property’s sale value. However, this change does not suggest that the legislator intended to change the start date of the extension period from the enforcement date of the law enacted on May 9, 2014, to the enforcement date of the law enacted on February 28, 2017.
This ruling reinforces the view that the law has been in effect since 2014. The reasons provided for the non-residential law explicitly confirm that the rental law was enacted in 2014 and has been in effect since then.
Despite disputes between landlords and tenants, the judiciary remains independent in enforcing the legislator’s intent, without addressing the financial and social circumstances that are within the legislator’s domain. The need for the new residential rental law was recognized by the legislature. Any error in the law’s publication does not alter the established timelines, which were set to begin in 2014.
