The old rent crisis remains one of the most contentious and long-standing issues between landlords and tenants. Amid increasing public debate, the Housing Committee in the Egyptian Parliament continues to discuss proposed amendments aiming to strike a balance between the rights of both parties.
This move comes as part of Parliament’s efforts to address one of the most complex real estate issues of the past and current centuries, with its effects accumulating over decades, leaving behind significant social and economic challenges for millions of Egyptians.
The expected amendments have sparked mixed reactions—some see them as necessary to achieve justice, while others fear their impact on low-income groups.
A Deep Legislative Imbalance
In this context, lawyer and international legal advisor Mohanny Youssef issued an urgent appeal to the Egyptian legislator to end the old rent crisis that has persisted for over seven decades, emphasizing that current conditions demand a radical and fair solution.
In exclusive remarks to Al-Wafd, Youssef explained:
“Law No. 121 of 1947 on old rents was an exceptional legislation to address the circumstances of World War II. However, over time, it became a dark tunnel of injustice and legal distortion.”
Youssef noted that “successive amendments to the law, starting from 1954 and continuing in 1977 and 1981, failed to correct its course. Instead, they entrenched a deep legislative imbalance, transforming rental relations into a permanent constraint on landlords and a hereditary gain for tenants.“
He further highlighted that rulings by the Supreme Constitutional Court in 2018 and 2023 offered a glimmer of hope, affirming that the old rent system was only a temporary exception and that the legislator never intended to create permanent rights. This gives Parliament the green light to correct this legal defect.
Youssef added that the new draft law under discussion—though not yet officially issued—reflects legislative intent toward reform. Unfortunately, however, it falls short of ambitions. Although it includes positive points like ending old contracts within five years and increasing rent values, the unjustifiably long transitional period and the proposed 15% annual increase do not match inflation or market prices. This signals a lack of seriousness in dealing with the economic and social tragedy facing landlords.
He also noted that the law does not differentiate between capable and incapable tenants and does not properly address the historical accumulations of legal distortion. Youssef proposed a number of urgent demands, including:
- Enacting decisive legislation to terminate all old rental contracts within six months;
- Fully liberalizing the real estate market under the Civil Code;
- Establishing specialized judicial circuits to resolve disputes within 90 days.
He also called for transitional guarantees, such as:
- A support fund for elderly tenants.
- Restricting support to those whose unit is their only residence.
- Imposing a transitional rent of 50% of the market value.
- Enforcing deterrent measures with fines up to EGP 500,000 for violators
- Holding accountable those who make structural modifications without landlord consent.
Youssef concluded by saying: “Under the wise leadership of President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, who has led Egypt to unprecedented development, it is no longer acceptable to tolerate this legal distortion. Egypt today is capable of correcting this course.“
A Long Battle Over the Right to Fair Rent
Meanwhile, Counselor Ayman Mahfouz, a cassation lawyer, confirmed that Parliament is currently discussing the amendments to the old rent law, following rulings from the Supreme Constitutional Court that necessitate a legislative adjustment to reconcile the rights of landlords and tenants.
In exclusive comments to Al-Wafd, Mahfouz explained that the amendments come after a prolonged conflict over the right to fair rent under the old law, and that it is now time to declare the legal “death” of this exceptional legislation, which was imposed under specific political circumstances. The court ruled that landlords were unfairly burdened due to the fixed rent system that ignored time and inflation, violating principles of justice.
Mahfouz clarified that the law created a contractual imbalance borne solely by landlords, in addition to the near-perpetual legal extension of old rental contracts. Fixed rent without considering currency devaluation pushed the state to intervene with a new law to eliminate these legal loopholes.
He expressed hope that this ruling would result in a new legal framework through Parliament and legislative channels that would correct the contractual path in response to the cries of both landlords and tenants, both of whom have suffered from Law No. 136 of 1981. The court ruled Articles 1 and 2 unconstitutional, as they fixed the rent at 7% of the property’s construction value without regard to inflation or currency depreciation—clearly unconstitutional according to equality and property protection principles.
Mahfouz emphasized that the ruling did not solely favor landlords as some may believe. Instead, it revealed the constitutional flaws of this law, which failed to account for serious social and economic dimensions.
He concluded that the ruling aims to rebalance landlord-tenant relations under old rent contracts and produce a new law that gradually increases rents according to property value and location, achieving a fairer relationship. However, legal entities and commercial leases will remain excluded from this ruling.
