For his part, lawyer Hassan Keshli says that “Although the Constitutional Council rejected the appeal, the Parliament’s swift move to amend the law indicates an implicit acknowledgment that the original law needed correction, particularly concerning the deadlines and the determination of fair market rent or the rights associated with old tenants.”
In a related context, he explains that “the reasons for the ongoing dispute begin with the complete absence of social justice. Tenants feel the law does not protect them from eviction or from exorbitant rent hikes, while owners believe the law has not given them their due rights after many years. Added to this are the political and sectarian divisions, with some parliamentary blocs defending one group at the expense of the other, creating a kind of polarization within Parliament itself. This is alongside the absence of the compensation fund, which is considered one of the most significant flaws in the law’s implementation.”
Is the latest amendment final?
In response, Keshli says that “the latest amendment is not necessarily final. It could, in turn, face a new appeal if it contains articles that could be considered unconstitutional or discriminatory. Furthermore, its actual implementation will depend on an implementing decree and a support fund, which means it remains theoretical for now.”
He concludes by saying: “The law remains in a state of tug-of-war, and the turmoil surrounding it erodes the public’s trust in the legal system and its ability to achieve a fair balance. What is needed today is a clear and just law that considers the circumstances of both parties and can be implemented without the need for constant amendments or perpetual judicial intervention.”