Dr. Mohamed Gomaa is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Law, University of Hamburg, and a JURIST Correspondent covering Egypt.
In a milestone judicial and legislative development, the Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) has taken center stage in a high-stakes constitutional review targeting the nation’s foundational property contracts. At the heart of this legal battle are the continuous constitutional challenges and appeals brought against the newly enacted Rent Law No. 165 of 2025. Specifically, the legal disputes focus on the statutory mechanics governing the eviction of residential and commercial units, alongside the mandatory indexation of rental values—automatically adjusting rent prices based on economic indicators like inflation.
As the enforcement of these provisions undergoes strict judicial scrutiny, the situation has ignited a highly polarized national debate: landlords want to regain full control over their properties, while tenants are fighting to keep housing affordable and stable.
The legal push comes as family and civil courts face unprecedented backlogs, with property and tenancy relations still governed by outdated laws from nearly a century ago. For example, under the old Rent Law No. 136 of 1981, rents were frozen at very low rates—sometimes as little as $10/month for apartments that would now rent for $500 or more at market value. This long-standing system has bottlenecked urban development and created a severe economic imbalance between historically low rents and soaring modern inflation.
By enacting Law No. 165 of 2025, the state sought to establish a transitional legislative framework to overhaul the historical regime established under the old Rent Law No. 136 of 1981, Governing the Lease and Non-Residential Relocation. However, instead of resolving the issue, the new statute has triggered a series of lawsuits, forcing the Supreme Constitutional Court to step in as the ultimate arbiter of economic fairness and social peace.
Legal observers note that the current constitutional scrutiny centers on several profound structural shifts and specific judicial precedents. The ongoing appeals before the SCC challenge the constitutionality of the progressive rent increases mandated by Law No. 165 of 2025, with petitioners arguing that the statutory indexation rates (the formula used to calculate rent increases) fail to reflect the actual economic capacities of lower-income households.
Tenants unions have anchored their legal arguments on the historic benchmarks set by the SCC, notably Decision No. 70 of Judicial Year 18, which ruled that landlords cannot evict tenants without considering the impact on social cohesion, and Decision No. 11 of Judicial Year 23, which stated that rent control laws must balance property owners’ rights with the social responsibility of private property ownership.
Conversely, property owners’ groups are pushing for strict compliance with the court’s later rulings, specifically referencing Decision No. 24 of Judicial Year 37, which declared that indefinitely extending non-residential leases (e.g., for businesses) was unconstitutional, forcing the legislature to intervene, and Decision No. 5 of Judicial Year 43, which struck down the fixed rental values for residential units under the old 1981 law as unconstitutional, arguing that they violated property rights.
Landlords argue that any attempt by the legislature to cap or freeze rent adjustments under the new 2025 statute directly violates the constitutional protection of private property. To manage this massive wave of lawsuits, the current framework introduces mandatory judicial reconciliation sessions for handling disputes between landlords and tenant. This means that no eviction notice can proceed until it undergoes this specialized administrative screening.
From a legal and economic standpoint, this judicial overhaul represents a vital modernization effort, yet it exposes the deep tension between historical social protections and contemporary market demands. While proponents celebrate the implementation of Law No. 165 of 2025 as a win for contractual certainty and property restoration, critics from both secular and conservative factions argue that the current transitional text creates new administrative anomalies.
For instance, housing rights advocates argue that accelerating eviction timelines penalizes low-income families, potentially leaving them homeless, and fails to prioritize their constitutional right to adequate shelter. Conversely, property commentators worry that delaying rent increases based on ongoing “social stability evaluations” could compromise the financial viability of landlords’ private real estate assets.
From the perspective of the rule of law, the ultimate success of these statutory updates hinges not on their text, but on their enforceability. Introducing structured rent indexation, or a centralized housing support fund, for vulnerable tenants is a noble legislative objective. However, Egypt’s executive and civil enforcement bodies must be equipped to rigorously enforce compliance. If the state cannot practically prevent unlawful sub-leasing during the transitional period—or if the courts lack the mechanism to track and verify the true economic status of impacted tenants—these progressive steps risk becoming dead letters.
Moving forward, domestic observers and international human rights and economic legal scholars should closely monitor the upcoming decisions of the Supreme Constitutional Court over the summer, as the judiciary attempts to strike a precarious balance between deep-seated social contracts and the pressing economic realities of modern property structures.
