In a working-class neighbourhood in Cairo lives Umm Hamdy, who is over 70. Her story began years ago when she lost her husband, a simple worker who left her three daughters and an old-rent apartment for which she pays EGP 50 a month.
The woman bore the responsibility of raising her daughters after her husband’s death, working as a cleaner to cover living expenses and the girls’ education until they all married. But hardship did not leave her: her eldest daughter was divorced and came back to live with her, while she lost her second daughter after a struggle with illness, who left her two young grandchildren to raise.
Despite all the difficulties, Umm Hamdy has continued to live on a “Decent Life” pension of no more than EGP 400 after retiring because of age and illness, helped by her divorced daughter, who works as a cleaner on a salary of no more than EGP 1,000.
Today she faces a double burden to meet the needs of a family made up of grandchildren and a divorced daughter, amid high prices and the costs of education, electricity, gas and food, and her fears have now grown with talk of possible increases in old rents. She tells Zawia3: “How can I pay a higher rent when I can barely provide the basic needs of my grandchildren? I want nothing for myself, but I fear being left without shelter with them.”
The breadwinner woman in her seventies is a living example of the challenges facing millions of families in Egypt as a result of the Supreme Constitutional Court’s decision, issued recently, which indicated that rents in old-rent contracts are not fixed, meaning that property owners are entitled to demand radical adjustments to the rent value in line with current prices. On the one hand, property owners see the step as possibly the beginning of regaining their rights, which they describe as “plundered” under the old rent laws that they say are outdated; on the other hand, tenants live in deep fear, worried that the amendments will go beyond raising the rent to giving up the housing unit entirely and returning it to its owners.
This decision has pushed many tenants into a state of terror that the rent will exceed their modest financial means, which barely meet their own needs and those of their families, as many families rely entirely on old rents as the basis of their stability, and any change in the rent value could lead to the collapse of this stability.
The Historical Development of the Rent Law
The rent law in Egypt has undergone major developments, starting in the reign of King Fuad I in 1920, when the first law regulating the relationship between landlord and tenant was issued, ensuring that a tenant could be evicted only by court ruling. In the reign of King Farouk I, in 1947, Old Rent Law No. 121 was issued, which placed strict restrictions on landlords, preventing the eviction of tenants except in exceptional cases such as the dilapidation of the property or refusal to pay rent.
President Gamal Abdel Nasser came in 1965 with Law No. 7, which reduced rents by up to 35% and abolished some of the landlord’s rights, such as residence, demolition and rebuilding, influenced by the economic and social conditions of the time. He was followed by President Mohamed Anwar Sadat, who in 1981 issued Law 136, which allowed rental contracts to be extended for life, even after the tenant’s death, provided the heirs had lived in the property for at least a year before the death, which further complicated the relationship between landlord and tenant. Under President Mohamed Hosni Mubarak, Law No. 4 of 1996 was issued, which allowed freedom of contract between the two parties and abolished the automatic extension of old rental contracts, but allowed the contract to be inherited under specific conditions. Citizens considered it the beginning of encroachment on the tenant’s right and the granting to the landlord of a new right he did not previously have.
With President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi taking office, the old rent law emerged as one of the thorny files, when in 2019 he called for amending the old rent law, especially for non-residential buildings, with a grace period to regularise situations. The debate continued in subsequent years, up to the raising of the issue in the National Dialogue in 2023, until the Constitutional Court ruling of 10 November, which ruled unconstitutional the first paragraph of Articles 1 and 2 of Law 136 of 1981 on the leasing of premises and regulating the relationship between landlord and tenant, thereby changing the value of the set monthly rent.
After the January 2011 revolution, the old rent law turned into a complex, controversial issue: while its initial aim was to protect tenants, it has now become a source of major dispute between landlords and tenants, following the recent Constitutional Court decision.
The decision sparked wide debate on social media, with opinions divided between those who see the need to liberalise contracts to achieve justice for landlords and those who fear the consequences of rent increases on low-income tenants, which pushed tenants into online protests on social media, through several groups and hashtags calling for the decision to be halted.
Amid this controversy, some human stories emerged reflecting the suffering of affected tenants who cannot bear the increases planned for the coming period. Thousands of tenants expressed concern about the impact of these amendments on their daily lives, amid fears of large rent increases that could confront them with financial challenges they cannot meet. Foremost among them is Samir Abdel Aziz, who tells us: “The original tenant bore great burdens: the tenant paid key money, finished the apartment and installed the meters and utilities, and the rent represented 80% of his income, while the original landlord was content to collect the key money at the start, and left his children illusory property,” calling for tenants to be given the opportunity to own the properties for an amount set by the authorities, according to the building’s age, condition and area, taking into account the money the tenant had previously paid.
In this context, Yousri El-Hanawi, one of those affected, from Assiut governorate, points out that his father furnished the apartment, installed the meters and restored the building with the other residents, while the original owner spent nothing, and he considers demands to evict these properties an injustice to the tenants who invested in them from the beginning.
As she describes it, the crisis has also affected Mariam Naguib, from Qalyubia governorate, who points out that the number of old-rent units exceeds six million units across Egypt, while the housing committee focuses only on data for Greater Cairo, demanding that the real figures on the scale of the crisis be shown. She stressed that she would not be able to pay any increases, as she is divorced and lives in her late father’s apartment, and her salary does not exceed EGP 4,000, which barely covers her children’s expenses and the household’s needs for gas, electricity and other utilities.
Mahmoud Ismail, who is affected by the old rent laws, from Sohag governorate, explains his situation to us: “I paid EGP 13,000 in 1991 as key money, when the price of a gram of gold was about EGP 21, equivalent to half a kilo of gold at the time, and the rent was agreed by mutual consent of both parties and was the highest price at the time. Now, with changing circumstances, we find ourselves the weaker party against owners who have become a pressure force in the property market, even though both parties invested under the same circumstances, so why should the tenant alone bear the burden?”
Somaya Raafat, from Alexandria governorate, talks about her family’s experience: “My mother rented an apartment in 1995 in bare red brick; we fully finished it and paid EGP 17,000 at the time, a large sum, and now we pay EGP 120 a month in rent, but what is the solution with these new laws that threaten our stability?” Meanwhile, Mohamed Bahnas considers that the money paid as key money in the past is equivalent to millions of pounds today in gold value, stressing: “Housing and earning a living are a red line, and we will defend them with everything we have,” noting that recently, no more than five years ago, the landlord asked them to renovate the house and restructure it again at their own expense without his involvement, and wondering: who will repay the huge sums we recently paid to restore the house?
The Legal View on the Rent Crisis
Counsellor Michel Halim, legal adviser to the Tenants’ Association, confirms that the Supreme Constitutional Court’s recent ruling on the rent law rules that the annual rent for residential premises covered by the law’s provisions is not fixed, noting that this change will affect about 3.35 million housing units, equivalent to about 20 million tenants.
Halim explains that adjustments to the rental value must not be sudden or excessive; rather, they should be gradual to match current inflation rates, ensuring that owners do not exploit tenants’ needs, stressing that the previous rights of tenants, including those who paid “key money” or concluded contracts under old legal protection, must be taken into account to ensure that their legal positions are not undermined. He points out that the media focus heavily on the landlords’ side and ignore tenants’ issues.
He adds that the Supreme Constitutional Court confirmed that no tenant may be evicted from his housing unit except by a court decision, which strengthens tenants’ legal protection, and that the new rent values must also be set fairly, in line with the nature of residential areas and the condition of properties, taking economic inflation into account to avoid any unjustified additional burdens.
In the same context, lawyer Ayman Ammar, who represents some tenants, explains a number of points about tenants’ rights under the old rent law and its recent amendments. He says: “Owners used to live on the ground floor and rent out the rest of the building long ago, and the evidence of the enormous gains the landlord used to make is that he was prepared to give up his own home in return for the rent he would receive from the tenant. This situation happened with my family in the Gamaliya district several years ago; the owner focused on key money, which compensated for the amount he had paid for the land and construction.”
He points out that owners used to regard old rent as an instalment plan for apartments, as landlords benefited from properties at the highest cost without realising that future generations of owners would need these revenues, and new compensation on the tenant’s shoulders, adding: “Current owners do not have the same right their grandparents had, because the contracts were concluded between the original owner and the tenant, the contract is the law of the contracting parties, and an heir may not change the terms of a contract to which he was not a party.”
The lawyer continues: “Many new owners who bought properties in recent years for large sums now expect returns commensurate with the value of their investments, and the old owners also made big gains from rents in the past, which creates many difficulties for tenants, especially in low-income areas. How can a person who receives a ration subsidy of EGP 300 be expected to pay rent of up to EGP 1,000? We are talking about places such as the Gamaliya district and other alleys and lanes, and working-class areas whose residents suffer from deteriorating economic conditions.”
He adds: “It is important to understand that there is a large segment of tenants who have lived in these areas for decades. The economic situation of these people does not allow them to bear large rent increases; the cost of electricity, for example, can reach EGP 1,000 a month for an apartment without air conditioning, and with air conditioning it can reach EGP 3,000. So if the rent is EGP 500, that is considered reasonable to some extent.”
Mohamed Mamdouh, a member of the economic committee of the National Council for Human Rights, stresses that discussing this particular subject requires “a surgeon’s scalpel” to achieve a balance between landlord and tenant. He says: “There are indeed tenants who cannot pay or bear any increases under the current economic conditions, including those who live on state aid in the form of the ‘Decent Life’ pension and cannot bear any new burdens.”
On the other hand, owners of some units suffer, especially closed units in which no one lives (according to recent data, the number of residential apartments rented under old-rent contracts is 1.8 million, including 400,000 apartments that are closed and unused by tenants), which leaves them living in a pitiful state, and they too resort to the “Decent Life” pension to help them live, according to Mamdouh.
According to the member of the economic committee of the National Council for Human Rights, there must be an accurate study of this file, with studies of different cases across the country and at all levels, in order to issue a balanced law that serves both parties under the current economic conditions, without injustice.
In an attempt to propose some solutions that may find an echo with the authorities, MP Ahmed Kenawy, secretary-general of the Adl Party and member of the Senate, says: “Regarding the question of liberalising the relationship between landlord and tenant in old rent, I would like to clarify that the proposal I see as most consistent with justice and with not harming those affected by the liberalisation is to establish a fund to compensate those affected or to pay on their behalf the rental value according to market prices. This would be done by liberalising the relationship gradually rather than all at once, and there could be a transitional period of four to six years, as agreed.”
According to the senator, if the authorities decide that the transitional period for applying the law’s amendments should be five years, the difference between the old rent and the current market price should be divided gradually over this period. For example, if the market value of an apartment is EGP 10,000 and the old rent is EGP 10, the rent is increased gradually: by EGP 2,000 in the first year, EGP 4,000 in the second, and so on. The landlord waives this value entirely in favour of the fund. He adds: “In this way, we can collect a good sum that the authorities can support as part of their social care for special cases, such as a widow without income or a disabled person living in an old-rent property who cannot provide alternative housing, so that the fund pays these amounts to the landlord on their behalf until their situation improves or their life ends.”
Despite the Supreme Constitutional Court’s decision on adjusting the rental value, citizens remain confused about the application of the law, wondering about the appropriate mechanism for applying it and the damage that may befall old tenants, while the decision has pleased landlords and their heirs, who have been suffering great economic difficulties despite owning properties and units possibly worth millions of pounds.
