Explained: Compulsory Extension of Rented Properties

After the fall of the Assad regime on December 8, 2024, owners of some properties leased under the compulsory extension system sought to reclaim their properties and evict tenants. In certain cases, landlords enlisted the military forces of Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) to evict tenants without going through the courts. This is peculiar, given that courts in HTS-controlled areas of Idlib, where the Islamist group was formerly based, have not formally abolished the compulsory extension system.

Properties leased under the old Tenancy Law No. 111 of 1952 are subject to compulsory extension, meaning the lease is automatically extended regardless of the landlord’s wishes, thereby undermining their rights and contradicting the legal principle that “a contract is the law of the contracting parties,” as stipulated in Article 148 of the Syrian Civil Code. This system grants one party rights not agreed upon when the contract was signed. Despite multiple rental laws issued since then, none have resolved the issue of properties subject to compulsory extension. A significant portion of these properties is rented by Syrian governmental and official bodies.

Tenancy Law No. 6 of 2001 granted property owners the right to file a lawsuit to terminate the lease relationship, provided they pay the tenant 40 percent of the leased property’s value. This percentage remains contentious among legal professionals, given its significant financial implications. Tenancy Law No. 20 of 2015, the most recent legislation on rental regulations, did not address the compulsory extension issue.

Since December 8, 2024, some property owners have reclaimed properties which were subject to compulsory extension by force. This contravenes current legal provisions, which state that courts cannot issue eviction orders without the landlord paying the 40 percent compensation stipulated by law. The law is clear on this matter: any ruling for eviction that does not meet this condition violates the law. According to the legal principle “no interpretation is permitted where the text is clear,” such evictions are unlawful.

Resolving the compulsory extension issue requires new legislation to abolish or amend the relevant provisions and establish a fair framework that protects the rights of both parties. For instance, the new law could end compulsory extension, grant tenants a reasonable grace period to secure alternative housing, and introduce fair compensation rates based on the type and importance of the property.

The current government, as a caretaker administration, is legally limited to maintaining public services and operations. While it can suspend laws or legal provisions involving violations, it lacks the authority to issue or amend laws, which requires a legislative body.

If an eviction is carried out by non-judicial entities, it is illegal. Tenants evicted in this manner may file lawsuits to reclaim legal possession based on their compulsory extension rights unless the landlord agrees to pay 40 percent of the property’s value. Such evictions also carry criminal liability, as they constitute taking the law into one’s own hands, in violation of the Syrian penal code.

To understand how courts in opposition-controlled areas handle properties subject to compulsory extension, it is essential to examine their development and legal frameworks.

Since 2012, some courts in opposition areas were established and named “Sharia Courts,” as their rulings were based on Islamic law and jurisprudence. Others retained a civil legal character by adopting the Arab Unified Law drafted by the Arab League in 1996 to unify laws across Arab states. This law heavily incorporates principles of Islamic law. In 2017, courts under the opposition Syrian Interim Government (SIG) in northern Syria adopted Syrian Arab law, referencing the 1950 Constitution, with modifications to suit current needs. Meanwhile, in HTS-controlled areas, Sharia law is applied alongside some laws issued by the group’s Syrian Salvation Government (SSG).

From the outset, courts in opposition areas faced the challenge of compulsory extension and adopted various approaches to address it. For instance, between 2012 and 2016, landlords of properties under compulsory extension filed complaints with Sharia bodies in Aleppo’s eastern neighbourhoods to evict tenants. These bodies issued eviction orders and carried them out without compensating tenants. Compensation was left to the landlord’s discretion and, if provided, was determined by experts and local customs. Evictions were justified by Sharia rulings that prohibited tenants from staying after lease expiry or receiving payments for vacating the property.

In Idlib, the SSG issued Circular No. 13 on January 15, 2018 and its explanatory memorandum. This barred courts from hearing lawsuits by landlords seeking to terminate lease relationships for properties under compulsory extension (for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes) governed by Law No. 111 of 1952. As a result, landlords are obliged to continue leases indefinitely, maintaining the status quo under compulsory extension provisions.