For landlords, a tenant who stops paying rent can turn a rental investment into a growing financial liability.
The proposed changes to South Africa’s eviction laws could, however, give property owners a clearer route through the courts when a non-paying tenant refuses to leave.
The draft Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Amendment Bill seeks to address uncertainty around eviction proceedings, strengthen the enforcement of eviction orders and provide greater protection for property owners, while retaining safeguards for vulnerable occupiers.
Cabinet specifically said the proposed amendments were intended to protect property owners and address ambiguities in the current law.
For landlords, one of the most significant questions is whether the proposed changes could allow a faster eviction process where they can demonstrate undue financial hardship caused by a tenant who is not paying rent.
That does not mean landlords would be able to bypass the courts or remove tenants themselves. A court order would still be required.
Human Settlements Minister Thembi Simelane published the draft Bill for public comment on April 16, 2026. The comment period was later extended to August 6 following requests for more time.
The Bill is potentially significant for both sides of the rental relationship: landlords facing prolonged arrears could have a clearer legal route to regain possession, while tenants would retain constitutional and statutory protections against arbitrary eviction.
For landlords, the financial pressure can continue long after rental payments stop. Rates, levies, insurance and, where applicable, bond repayments may still have to be paid while the property remains occupied.
Even where a lease has been cancelled because of non-payment, however, a landlord cannot simply remove the tenant, lock them out or take possession of the property without following the legal process.
Why PIE matters
The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, commonly known as PIE, was introduced in 1998 against the background of South Africa’s history of forced removals and arbitrary evictions.
Its central protection is that a person may not be evicted from a home or land without a court order. The legislation requires courts to consider whether an eviction would be just and equitable, including the circumstances of the occupier and whether vulnerable people may be affected.
The South African Human Rights Commission has continued to stress the importance of court oversight and constitutional protections against unlawful evictions. In September 2025, it condemned evictions carried out without court orders, emphasising that PIE forms part of the legal protection against arbitrary removal from homes.
That protection remains central to the proposed amendments.
But for landlords, the legal protection afforded to occupiers can collide with the financial reality of a property that continues to generate costs while producing no rental income.
“Most landlords understand that tenants need legal protection. The issue is that the current process can leave responsible property owners carrying the financial burden for months while they wait for a lawful eviction to run its course,” says Grant Smee, CEO of Only Realty Property Group.
The Department of Human Settlements says the proposed amendments would clarify court processes, alternative accommodation requirements and the enforcement of eviction orders.
What could change for landlords?
One of the issues attracting attention from property owners is whether the proposed amendments could provide a more effective route through the courts in cases involving unlawful occupation.
“It’s important to note that the proposed amendments do not remove tenant protections, nor do they allow landlords to bypass the courts, you’ll still need a court order to evict a tenant,” says Smee.
However, the changes could make the eviction process clearer, and in some cases, give landlords greater financial protection, he says.
Smee says the proposed amendments could be particularly relevant to private landlords facing financial hardship because of prolonged non-payment.
He shares that the most relevant proposed amendment for private landlords is the possibility of a faster eviction process where they can prove undue financial hardship caused by a non-paying tenant.
The proposed changes also seek to expand the factors courts may consider when deciding eviction applications. The intention and circumstances surrounding an unlawful occupation could become more explicit considerations in the court process.
This is significant for landlords because not every case of non-payment has the same underlying circumstances. A tenant who has experienced genuine financial distress may present a different set of circumstances from an occupier who remains in a property after the lease has been lawfully cancelled and continues to refuse to vacate.
The Bill also proposes changes concerning alternative accommodation. The Department of Human Settlements said the proposed amendments would provide clearer rules around alternative or temporary accommodation, while courts would have greater clarity when determining who qualifies and for how long such accommodation should be provided.
“For landlords, the benefit of these amended laws is not that evictions suddenly become easy. The benefit is that the process may become more certain,” says Smee.
The Bill is broader than landlord-tenant disputes
While the proposed changes have attracted attention from landlords, the Bill is not limited to residential rental arrears.
Government has said the legislation is also aimed at illegal land occupations and organised land invasions. Proposed measures include stronger offences relating to people who incite or organise unlawful occupation, as well as fines and possible forfeiture of assets linked to illegal activities.
The Bill also proposes mandatory joinder of relevant government authorities in certain eviction proceedings where alternative accommodation is involved. In cases involving state-owned land, mandatory mediation has also been proposed.
These provisions mean that the eventual impact of the legislation will extend beyond individual landlords and tenants to municipalities, provincial human settlements departments and other organs of state.
The proposals have also attracted criticism from civil-society organisations, particularly over the potential effect on vulnerable occupiers and alternative accommodation. These concerns form part of the broader public debate that government sought to address through the extended consultation process.
Paperwork could make or break a landlord's case
For landlords, the proposed amendments do not remove the need to manage rental agreements carefully.
While the legislative process continues, Smee says landlords should concentrate on building a clear documentary record from the beginning of a tenancy.
“The landlords who are best protected are usually the ones with the best paper trail. That starts long before an eviction application,” he says
This means keeping signed lease agreements, records of rental payments, correspondence with tenants, notices of breach, payment arrangements and evidence of attempts to resolve arrears.
Landlords should also keep evidence of the financial consequences of non-payment. This could include bond statements, municipal accounts, levy statements, insurance costs and records showing lost rental income.
Such documentation may become particularly important where a landlord seeks to demonstrate financial hardship.
Smee also cautions against relying on informal agreements.
“Landlords often try to be reasonable, and that is not a bad thing. But if you agree to a payment plan, reduced rent or an extension, put it in writing. Goodwill is important, but it should not come at the expense of protecting your legal position.”
Acting early is equally important when rent arrears begin to accumulate.
“One missed payment is a warning sign. Two or three missed payments can quickly become a much bigger legal and financial problem. The sooner a landlord deals with non-payment formally and correctly, the stronger their position is likely to be,” says Smee.
The law has not changed yet
For landlords and tenants, an important distinction remains: the proposed amendments are not yet the law.
The public-comment process was extended to August 6, 2026, and the Bill still has to go through the legislative process before any amendments take effect.
Until then, landlords must follow the existing legal framework when seeking to evict an occupier.
For property owners, the lesson is therefore less about assuming that eviction will become faster and more about ensuring that every step taken against a defaulting tenant is properly documented and legally compliant.
“Property remains one of the most powerful ways to build wealth, but it is not a passive income stream when things go wrong. If these amendments are passed, they may give landlords a stronger route through the courts. But the landlord still needs to arrive there prepared,” Smee says.
THE NATIONALhttps://thenational.co.za/