Tenants in South Africa are facing increasing pressure due to continuous rent increases, with 16.9% of tenants having arrears in the second quarter of 2026. According to the latest PayProp Rental Index, the proportion of such tenants has slightly increased compared to the first quarter (16.7%), although it remains close to historical lows. Tenants with arrears owed an average of 73.5% of the monthly rent, which is lower than the 74.3% recorded in the previous quarter.
The average residential rent reached a record R9,715 in the second quarter, which is R133 more than the previous quarter and 5.2% higher than a year ago. However, for tenants who cannot afford their bills, falling into arrears does not mean that the landlord can simply evict them. Two recent High Court rulings demonstrate that non-payment of rent can ultimately lead to eviction, but landlords must adhere to the legally prescribed procedure before depriving someone of housing.
Increase in Arrears
In a ruling delivered last week, the KwaZulu-Natal High Court ordered tenants to vacate property in Durban, which they had occupied for over 12 years without paying rent. The dispute in the case of Strydom N.O and Another v Phili and Others began back in 2014, following an unsuccessful attempt to terminate the lease agreement. In 2019, the High Court ruled that the termination was unlawful because the landlord failed to provide the tenants with sufficient notice to remedy the breach before ending the contract.
The tenants continued to reside in the premises and not pay the rent. In 2025, the landlords again notified the breach, providing one month to rectify the issue, and then gave the tenants another month to vacate. This time, the court deemed the termination lawful. The court noted that the tenants presented no valid legal arguments allowing them to remain in the property without payment, and ordered them to vacate by October 15, 2026.
After Twelve Years
A case heard in Johannesburg on July 23, 2026, reached a similar outcome after a tenant defaulted on payment. In the case of RED R7 (Pty) Ltd v Seroka and Another, the Gauteng court examined that the tenant made a payment default shortly after moving in. Claims and notices of termination were issued, and eventually, the landlord initiated eviction proceedings in July 2024.
By April 2025, the landlord's account showed an outstanding debt of R188,579.96, although the tenant disputed this amount, claiming that deductions from prepaid electricity purchases were incorrectly accounted for. The case also demonstrated that the eviction court does not necessarily have to resolve all financial disputes between the landlord and the tenant before deciding whether the tenant can remain in the property. The court did not rule on the exact amount of the debt, stating that the landlord could pursue debt recovery separately, and the tenant could raise the issue of deductions from prepaid electricity purchases within those proceedings.
Introduction to Legislation
Residential evictions are regulated by the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, known as PIE, which requires a court order before an unlawfully occupying resident can be evicted. The Constitutional Court considered the principles of this legislation over two decades ago in the case of Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers. The court established that PIE obliges courts to go beyond determining ownership and unlawful occupation to consider whether the eviction would be fair and equitable in the circumstances.
If a resident has lived in the property for more than six months, PIE explicitly requires the court to consider relevant circumstances, including the possibility of reasonable provision of land or alternative accommodation for resettlement.
Anticipation of Changes
Recent cases show that landlords can also find themselves in difficulty if they attempt to bypass the judicial process. In the case of Lukhele and Others v Humayl Properties, residents were evicted from a property in Randburg while an eviction application against them was pending. The Gauteng Court deemed the eviction unlawful and ordered the immediate restoration of possession of the property. Furthermore, property owners were prohibited from interfering with the occupants' possession by changing locks, disconnecting utilities, seizing property, or intimidating them while the litigation was ongoing.
This ruling clearly showed that claims that residents owe money or have no right to stay do not grant the owner the right to circumvent a court eviction order. It was also established that merely demanding the tenant leave is insufficient to comply with PIE. In the case of Dikgwathle v Phetheni, handed down on June 12, 2026, the North West High Court set aside the eviction, finding that a private notice to vacate is not a court-authorized notice required by law.
PIE requires that both the resident and the municipality receive written and effective notice of the court proceedings at least 14 days before the hearing. Among other things, the notice must state the time and place of the proceedings, outline the grounds for the alleged eviction, and inform the residents of their right to appear in court and defend their case, as well as apply for legal aid if necessary. The court found that these requirements had not been met and set aside the eviction order.
The rules governing evictions may also change. The Cabinet approved the publication of a draft amendment to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act for public comment at its meeting on March 25, 2026. The proposed changes aim to address issues of illegal land encroachment and property owners' rights while maintaining protection against arbitrary eviction. They also provide for changes to the matters the court must consider when making eviction decisions, and provisions regarding alternative accommodation.
For tenants struggling to pay rent, recent court decisions distinguish between having a debt and the eviction process. Non-payment can lead to the cancellation of the lease agreement and, ultimately, a court order for eviction. However, the landlord cannot act unilaterally until this process is complete and an eviction order is obtained.