The rental law: What is FPM's real position and plan of action?

Abou Sandal

Abou Sandal

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Since the dawn of time, landlords are seeing their properties being literally confiscated, due to the effect of the unfair and unjust rental law, where contracts are freezed and rental amounts, only symbolically upgraded.

For example, an average apartment that can be rented for 600 Dollars per month, is now occupied by the old tenant, for an average varying between 20 and 50 Dollars.

The landlord can do nothing about it, and if he wants to evict or remove the tenant, which is only allowed for specific and restrictive reasons mind you, he needs to pay to the tenant, up to 40 percent of the price of his own property.

Which is a complete unfair situation, where the landlord, who invested to buy his property or construct it, sees himself dispossessed from it, without compensation, the tenant being due to this law, if not a partner in the property, the real and own owner.

With a little ice on the cake for the tenant, who is now the real and effective owner of the property, which is that the landlord has the obligation to maintain and restore the property for the tenant, and furthermore, the landlord is the on who pays the tax on the property.

A situation that is worse than the worst communist system of governance. A situation that is totally against our constitution.

A real scandal that has to stop.

Yet last year, FPM voted on the renewal of this law, and it was provided in the text that the renewal will be for one and last year.

The year almost ended and it is time to see what will be done in that regard.

What disturbed me last year, is a comment from GMA that the law that was proposed (last year) about the lift of the unfair and unconstitutional rental law, was postponed, because we wanted to avoid being unfair to the tenant.(something like that)

Unfair to the tenant?

How can anyone be unfair to the tenant, if we give back the property to it's rightful owner after being confiscated for more than 30 years!?

How about being fair to the owner?

Who is going to compensate him for all those years, where he paid taxes and maintenance and restoration, without any return?

Who is going to compensate him for having had to either buy or rent a property, in order to live in it himself since his other property has been seized by the tenant?

What about his kids?

Who is owing to compensate him for having had to either buy or rent a property, in order for his kids to get married and live in?

What right does a tenant who has been confiscating a property for over 30 years have, for the law to need to be fair with him?

This circus really needs to stop. Enough is enough. Hopefully that the current government, and more specifically FPM, make the one and only right move, and without any compromise of any kind.
 
  • Advertisement
  • elias-aj

    elias-aj

    Legendary Member
    Well, it's an important issue indeed. I think the Government should at least present a bill to the Parliament introducing some exit mechanisms while protecting to some extent the "deprived" population.

    This issue is obviously to be linked with the numerous cases of illegal occupations of private or even public properties.

    It's important to start restoring some law and order in this country, especially when it concerns the right to property.
     
    Joe tayyar

    Joe tayyar

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Unfortunately, the only solution now, is for the landlord to wait for the tenant to pass away to be able to take his right!!!
     
    Venom

    Venom

    Legendary Member
    Unfortunately, the only solution now, is for the landlord to wait for the tenant to pass away to be able to take his right!!!
    On a condition that his son or daughter is not staying with them!!!

    They said they will pass a new law next March after postponing it for many years.
     
    My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Since the dawn of time, landlords are seeing their properties being literally confiscated, due to the effect of the unfair and unjust rental law, where contracts are freezed and rental amounts, only symbolically upgraded.

    For example, an average apartment that can be rented for 600 Dollars per month, is now occupied by the old tenant, for an average varying between 20 and 50 Dollars.

    The landlord can do nothing about it, and if he wants to evict or remove the tenant, which is only allowed for specific and restrictive reasons mind you, he needs to pay to the tenant, up to 40 percent of the price of his own property.

    Which is a complete unfair situation, where the landlord, who invested to buy his property or construct it, sees himself dispossessed from it, without compensation, the tenant being due to this law, if not a partner in the property, the real and own owner.

    With a little ice on the cake for the tenant, who is now the real and effective owner of the property, which is that the landlord has the obligation to maintain and restore the property for the tenant, and furthermore, the landlord is the on who pays the tax on the property.

    A situation that is worse than the worst communist system of governance. A situation that is totally against our constitution.

    A real scandal that has to stop.

    Yet last year, FPM voted on the renewal of this law, and it was provided in the text that the renewal will be for one and last year.

    The year almost ended and it is time to see what will be done in that regard.

    What disturbed me last year, is a comment from GMA that the law that was proposed (last year) about the lift of the unfair and unconstitutional rental law, was postponed, because we wanted to avoid being unfair to the tenant.(something like that)

    Unfair to the tenant?

    How can anyone be unfair to the tenant, if we give back the property to it's rightful owner after being confiscated for more than 30 years!?

    How about being fair to the owner?

    Who is going to compensate him for all those years, where he paid taxes and maintenance and restoration, without any return?

    Who is going to compensate him for having had to either buy or rent a property, in order to live in it himself since his other property has been seized by the tenant?

    What about his kids?

    Who is owing to compensate him for having had to either buy or rent a property, in order for his kids to get married and live in?

    What right does a tenant who has been confiscating a property for over 30 years have, for the law to need to be fair with him?

    This circus really needs to stop. Enough is enough. Hopefully that the current government, and more specifically FPM, make the one and only right move, and without any compromise of any kind.
    To me, it sounds like you are a happy owner of one or more properties, but an unhappy landlord :biggrin:

    You still have my sympathy, because you do have a point, just like my grandmother who died wel 7assra bi alba. She was not able to regain her building - didn't have the money to buy off the tenants, nor the heart to fight them - was not fairly supported by the rents it generated, and did not afford to keep and maintain it. So she sold it for a pittance, and left us mourning our luck more than her departure.
     
    Chaos

    Chaos

    Active Member
    On a condition that his son or daughter is not staying with them!!!

    They said they will pass a new law next March after postponing it for many years.
    If i remember well, Kurtbawi in a rare lucidity and presence moment asked to postpone it till the end of the year, luckily nobody noticed his awakness!
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    To me, it sounds like you are a happy owner of one or more properties, but an unhappy landlord :biggrin:
    Shou Khass? I'm only here for principles and to defend the widow and the orphan :biggrin:

    Joke aside, I feel exactly what your Grandmother (Allah Yer7ama) must have felt, not just because I am an owner, but also because in my professional life, I represent a lot of owners and landlords, but also a lot of tenants.

    Yet I confess that I always felt empathy towards the owners only.
     
    Shuyu3i

    Shuyu3i

    New Member
    Why don't we try to return the displaced to their homes as well while we are @ it?
     
    My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Shou Khass? I'm only here for principles and to defend the widow and the orphan :biggrin:

    Joke aside, I feel exactly what your Grandmother (Allah Yer7ama) must have felt, not just because I am an owner, but also because in my professional life, I represent a lot of owners and landlords, but also a lot of tenants.

    Yet I confess that I always felt empathy towards the owners only.
    I do wish you all the best luck with your cases. waj3et rass, that's what it is to own a property in Lebanon but in which, not you, but others live.
     
    fidelio

    fidelio

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The government can't ban rental laws after 6 o'clock. Tricky one since someone will actually have to think of a solution. Although i think it takes some courage to implement any solution, this is why conventional wisdom did leave this one for time and fate to do their charm.
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The government can't ban rental laws after 6 o'clock. Tricky one since someone will actually have to think of a solution. Although i think it takes some courage to implement any solution, this is why conventional wisdom did leave this one for time and fate to do their charm.
    I think that we reached a point where conventional wisdom might start looking like a Kalashnikov bullet. What does it cost? 15 years in jail? Better than a lifetime of ownership dispossession. At least you get out rich :biggrin:
     
    neutral

    neutral

    Legendary Member
    Shou Khass? I'm only here for principles and to defend the widow and the orphan :biggrin:

    Joke aside, I feel exactly what your Grandmother (Allah Yer7ama) must have felt, not just because I am an owner, but also because in my professional life, I represent a lot of owners and landlords, but also a lot of tenants.

    Yet I confess that I always felt empathy towards the owners only.
    Why are you complaining about the problem? if it gets solved then you will soon find yourself out of business :biggrin:
     
    fidelio

    fidelio

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I think that we reached a point where conventional wisdom might start looking like a Kalashnikov bullet. What does it cost? 15 years in jail? Better than a lifetime of ownership dispossession. At least you get out rich :biggrin:
    The government does not clog its reasoning with such trivial matters such as acute depressions and lost property.
    Their reasoning is on the long term; those buildings will last what? 30 years? Then all the tenants will eventually be renting under what they call the "new" law.
    What is 30 years for a country that has at least 6000 years of great civilization?
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Why are you complaining about the problem? if it gets solved then you will soon find yourself out of business :biggrin:
    But I do not work exclusively on matters related to rents. I also work on matters related to wages ( see the other thread) and of course on matters related to porn and sexshops ( see Ma Ba3da Ma Ba3da the other thread) :biggrin:
     
    fidelio

    fidelio

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    But I do not work exclusively on matters related to rents. I also work on matters related to wages ( see the other thread) and of course on matters related to porn and sexshops ( see Ma Ba3da Ma Ba3da the other thread) :biggrin:
    So your perfect client is someone who has a sex shop in an old rented property and who fired his single employee who happens to be the owner of the building because he refused to pay him his wage + rent.
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The government does not clog its reasoning with such trivial matters such as acute depressions and lost property.
    Their reasoning is on the long term; those buildings will last what? 30 years? Then all the tenants will eventually be renting under what they call the "new" law.
    What is 30 years for a country that has at least 6000 years of great civilization?
    No no...It's much worse!

    Suppose a building drops down to the ground. Well it changes nothing! The tenant still has the right to get up to 40 percent of the price of the apartment he was living in! Can it get more stupid?

    A little more and the government might simply vote a law stipulating that he clearly shares half the ownership, but that the owner is the only one to have to pay taxes while not having the right to use it, and furthermore, and in all cases, the original owner has to feed the so-called tenant and also give him some pocket money.

    Ila Ayn? (Uff it's been a while that we didn't hear this one)
     
    fidelio

    fidelio

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    No no...It's much worse!

    Suppose a building drops down to the ground. Well it changes nothing! The tenant still has the right to get up to 40 percent of the price of the apartment he was living in! Can it get more stupid?
    Seriously? I never thought this was possible.
    Maybe they should amend what they call "qanoun al ajarat al qadim" and introduce new ways to calculate the rental fees. Of course, the tenants will definitely not like this since their rent will most definitely increase and most of them are senior citizens with limited income. Of course, those who already can afford to pay good rent and still refuse to do so will get served quite fairly.
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Seriously? I never thought this was possible.
    Maybe they should amend what they call "qanoun al ajarat al qadim" and introduce new ways to calculate the rental fees. Of course, the tenants will definitely like this since their rent will most definitely increase and most of them are senior citizens with limited income. Of course, those who already can afford to pay good rent and still refuse to do so will get served quite fairly.
    In my experience, the tenant is always in search of ways to pay less and less to occupy the property of the landlord.

    The "qanoun al ajarat al qadim" was mainly decided in a period of war, where removing people from their houses would have had such a devastating effect.

    Then this law was revoted in 92 under the pretext that the country is still getting up on it's feet and that it would not be easy to get people out of their houses. So let's give them a little time ill they get on their feet before giving back that right to it's owner.

    Then it was voted again in 94, then again...then again...then each year it is voted again....

    Tayyeb Enno how many years does a tenant need to get back on his feet? I understand 2 or 3 maybe 5 years...But not over 30 years!

    Tayyeb Kamen...Enno what about the owner? Doesn't he also have feet he needs to get on too?

    La2 Enno Tekhnit Ktir....Not to mention the crapulous and abusive behavior of the tenant, who never ever offers anything in compensation, and even worse, snobs the owners and behaves like a brat.

    Ma Houwweh El Owner Mkhallfo W Keyin Nesih.

    Tab Ok I have a suggestion: If the government is so eager to take care of the tenant only (W Yel3an Abou L Melik), it is simple: Let the government either pay the landlord the difference in rent, or pay the tenant the needed compensation to leave the property.

    Exactly like they did with illegal occupiers of property under Sandou2 El Mhajjarine.

    After 30 years and more of confiscation, I still don't see why the owner needs to pay for the nth time the price of his property to get it back, and not to other than the one who has been confiscating it.

    It's like you rent your car, then a law says that the one who rented it from you shall keep it, unless you pay him half it's price.

    This is robbery!

    But fine, if the government insists, then let him fund it. Not ask people to open their pockets.
     
    fidelio

    fidelio

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    In my experience, the tenant is always in search of ways to pay less and less to occupy the property of the landlord.

    The "qanoun al ajarat al qadim" was mainly decided in a period of war, where removing people from their houses would have had such a devastating effect.

    Then this law was revoted in 92 under the pretext that the country is still getting up on it's feet and that it would not be easy to get people out of their houses. So let's give them a little time ill they get on their feet before giving back that right to it's owner.

    Then it was voted again in 94, then again...then again...then each year it is voted again....

    Tayyeb Enno how many years does a tenant need to get back on his feet? I understand 2 or 3 maybe 5 years...But not over 30 years!

    Tayyeb Kamen...Enno what about the owner? Doesn't he also have feet he needs to get on too?

    La2 Enno Tekhnit Ktir....Not to mention the crapulous and abusive behavior of the tenant, who never ever offers anything in compensation, and even worse, snobs the owners and behaves like a brat.

    Ma Houwweh El Owner Mkhallfo W Keyin Nesih.

    Tab Ok I have a suggestion: If the government is so eager to take care of the tenant only (W Yel3an Abou L Melik), it is simple: Let the government either pay the landlord the difference in rent, or pay the tenant the needed compensation to leave the property.

    Exactly like they did with illegal occupiers of property under Sandou2 El Mhajjarine.

    After 30 years and more of confiscation, I still don't see why the owner needs to pay for the nth time the price of his property to get it back, and not to other than the one who has been confiscating it.

    It's like you rent your car, then a law says that the one who rented it from you shall keep it, unless you pay him half it's price.

    This is robbery!

    But fine, if the government insists, then let him fund it. Not ask people to open their pockets.
    Nobody will tackle this issue anytime soon i'm afraid. It will weigh heavily on elections however you spin the wheel and votes are the most important asset all parties have.
    The government will not sponsor such a thing because the bribery that will ensure and the fraud cannot be controlled in such a way as to make profits for a selected group. It will be spread all over the place and what's the use in sponsoring something that your clique will not benefit properly from?
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Nobody will tackle this issue anytime soon i'm afraid. It will weigh heavily on elections however you spin the wheel and votes are the most important asset all parties have.
    The government will not sponsor such a thing because the bribery that will ensure and the fraud cannot be controlled in such a way as to make profits for a selected group. It will be spread all over the place and what's the use in sponsoring something that your clique will not benefit properly from?
    Unfortunately, you're absolutely spot on.

    And this is why I expect a firm stand from FPM over this issue. If FPM doesn't do the right thing and take the right stand like it promised, it means that something seriously wrong is happening.

    This issue is as clear and easy to solve, as it is tough to tackle.

    The solution is unique and simple: The owner have the right to fully enjoy his ownership without need for anyone's permission.

    Therefore,

    Either one stands rightfully and demands the protection and restoration of the right of ownership, or compromises on it and accepts the current situation.

    And there are no acceptable half measures, whether in terms of legality or in terms of ethics.

    This test will be a tough one.
     
    Top