Landlords and Tenants at Odds Over Compulsory Lease Extension

After the fall of the Assad regime, the issue of properties leased under compulsory extension laws has resurfaced, emerging as one of Syria’s most contentious legal and housing matters. Landlords argue that their properties were effectively confiscated for decades through the force of legislation, while tenants assert their acquired rights due to having paid rent over many years or, in the case of commercial properties, due to furough contracts. 

Amid the escalating conflict between landlords and tenants, some fear the potential outbreak of a large-scale crisis if tenants are forced to vacate compulsory extended leases without viable alternatives. Several lawyers told The Syria Report that, based on eviction cases, tens of thousands of homes in Damascus alone remain under this type of tenancy – putting thousands of tenants at genuine risk of losing their homes and shops unless the issue is resolved through a fair and gradual settlement.

Compulsory lease extension

Since the 1950s, the status tenancy in Syria has undergone successive legal transformations, gradually shifting from compulsory lease extensions imposed on landlords to a partial return to free contractual agreement, particularly after 2006. 

Legislative Decree No. 111 of 1952 first established the compulsory lease extension system, which stipulates the automatic renewal of leases regardless of the landlord’s will. This was then viewed as an infringement on property rights and a violation of the principle of “contracts are the law between the parties,” as set out in Article 148 of the Syrian Civil Code of 1949.

Subsequently, Tenancy Law No. 6 of 2001 sought to ease the compulsory lease regime by subjecting residential contracts signed after February 15, 2001 to the principle of free agreement, while leaving older contracts under the compulsory system. In a more decisive step, Tenancy Law No. 10 of 2006 subjected all new residential and commercial lease agreements to the principle of contractual freedom, thereby abolishing compulsory extension for these new contracts.

Furough system

Commercial properties leased prior to Law No. 10 of 2006 remain subject to a special statutory lease extension system known as furough. Under this system, the tenant pays the landlord a one-time lump sum – the “furough payment” – usually estimated at 40 to 60 percent of the commercial property’s value, in addition to a symbolic monthly rent that cannot be increased. The system also allows the tenant to transfer the right of occupancy to another tenant in exchange for a new furough payment, while ownership of the property remains with the original landlord.

Revaluation lawsuits

In the months following Assad’s fall, and amid the continued enforcement of old statutory leases, many original landlords filed “revaluation” lawsuits in court to adjust the rent in line with rising property values. Conversely, some tenants used the same legal mechanism to attempt rent reductions, citing reduced purchasing power or economic decline. As a result, revaluation lawsuits have become yet another legal battleground between the two sides – without necessarily offering a fundamental solution to the conflict between occupancy rights and ownership rights.

Official committee

On June 12, the Ministry of Justice issued Decision No. 856, establishing a specialised eight-member committee that includes judges and representatives of government and professional bodies. This committee was tasked with studying the legal status of properties leased under compulsory extension contracts, whether residential or non-residential, in both the public and private sectors. It also must propose balanced legislative solutions that ensure fairness between landlords and tenants, and was given two months to complete its work, extendable if needed. Members’ compensation is to be paid from the Ministry of Justice’s budget.

The committee held a dialogue seminar in Damascus on July 2 with the participation of landlords’ and tenants’ representatives, professional unions, and government officials. The aim of the seminar was to broaden consultation and provide an objective platform for exploring realistic and balanced solutions. The committee’s chair, Judge Anas Mansour Suleiman, stressed the neutrality and independence of the process, underlining the importance of ensuring justice for all parties without bias.

Landlords and tenants’ views

At the seminar, some original landlords or their representatives expressed frustration that their properties had remained in the hands of tenants for decades under unjust laws, with no ability to dispose of or reclaim them. Maher, a representative of a group of around 2,000 landlord families, told The Syria Report that reclaiming their property is a “constitutional right” requiring no committees or negotiations, only immediate enforcement. Others proposed a one-year deadline to vacate the properties to prevent a future housing crisis. Some demanded compensation for 70 years of occupation at rent rates far below actual property values. 

Some commercial landlords argued that furough is actually a “legal illusion,” as it is not based on a sales contract but a lease that should expire at the end of its term. Some went as far as to describe the current situation as “legalised theft” of property. One landlord said that “there is no such thing as a ‘furough owner’ – only the tenant occupying the property,” demanding the return of his property without paying any compensation.

On the other hand, commercial property tenants asserted that they occupied the properties under legal contracts and paid significant sums in furough payments – sums that landlords could have used to buy another property at the time. 

A lawyer, who represents several tenants in Al-Marjeh, Qasaa, and Bab Touma, stated that the ‘furough money paid previously was substantial, and that demanding eviction without compensation is unjust. “We do not deny the landlord’s right to reclaim their property, but the tenant should receive fair compensation calculated according to current market value,” said the lawyer.

Samir, a tenant of a commercial shop in Al-Marjeh that he inherited from his father, noted that the landlord was fully aware of the lease terms and furough system at the time of signing. “If he knew all this, why did he agree to lease it,” he asked. Samir said that it is unacceptable today to demand the return of the property unconditionally, and he insisted that the committee must also ensure justice for commercial tenants.

Common ground

Amid the stark polarisation between landlords and tenants, an employee of the General Housing Establishment (GHE)—a public body under the Ministry of Public Works and Housing— proposed a transitional solution during the seminar to avoid confrontation: a gradual vacating of properties over four years. According to this plan, the landlord could reclaim the property in the first year by paying 40 percent of its value to the tenant, 30 percent in the second year, 20 percent in the third, and either regain it for free or by paying only 10 percent in the fourth year. This proposal seeks to allow tenants enough time to find alternatives and to prevent the crisis from spilling from the courts into the streets.

In response, Bar Association president Ahmad Dukhan stressed the need to establish real balance in the relationship between the two parties, saying that the tenant remains a tenant, and the landlord remains the rightful owner. “It is unacceptable for domination to continue under the guise of law,” he said, adding that the Bar stands equidistant from both sides and that a fair solution must uphold both rights and justice.

Judge Mohammad Haj Hassan, a member of the committee, confirmed that the committee is still in the phase of hearing opinions and suggestions, given the complex contractual relationship governing leases, including those under the furough system. He explained that the issue affects a broad segment of society, which obliges the committee to listen to all parties without exception – laying the groundwork for drafting legislative proposals that deliver a fair and balanced solution that respects the interests of both sides.