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 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 make payments on time, falling into arrears does not mean the landlord can simply evict them.
Two recent High Court judgments demonstrate that non-payment of rent can ultimately lead to eviction, but landlords must follow the established procedure before depriving someone of housing. If a resident has lived in the property for more than six months, current legislation explicitly requires the court to consider relevant circumstances.
Arrears Increase
In a ruling delivered last week, the KwaZulu-Natal High Court ruled that tenants who had lived in the property in Durban for over 12 years without paying rent must vacate. The dispute in the case of Strydom N.O and Another versus Phili and Others began back in 2014, following an unsuccessful attempt to terminate the lease agreement.
In 2019, the High Court found the termination illegal because the landlord failed to provide the tenants with sufficient notice to remedy the breach before terminating the contract. The tenants remained in the property and continued to withhold rent. In 2025, the landlords again notified the breach, providing one month to rectify the issue, and then gave the tenants another month to move out. This time, the court deemed the termination lawful. The court stated that the tenants provided no valid legal arguments allowing them to remain in the property without payment, and ordered them to leave by October 15, 2026. Non-payment can lead to the cancellation of the lease agreement and, ultimately, a court order for eviction.
Twelve Years Later
A case from Johannesburg, decided on July 23, 2026, reached a similar outcome after a tenant accrued arrears. In the case of RED R7 (Pty) Ltd versus Seroka and Another, the Gauteng High Court considered that the tenant defaulted shortly after moving in. Demands and notices of termination followed, and eventually, the landlord filed an eviction lawsuit 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 showed that the eviction court is not obliged to resolve all financial disputes between the landlord and tenant before deciding whether the tenant can remain in the property. The court did not rule on the exact amount of the debt, noting that the landlord could pursue debt recovery separately, and the tenant could raise the issue of deductions from prepaid electricity purchases within those proceedings.
Application of Law
Residential evictions are governed by the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, known as PIE, which requires a court order before an unlawfully occupied resident can be evicted. The Constitutional Court examined the principles of this legislation over two decades ago in the case of Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers. The court ruled that PIE obliges courts to go beyond establishing ownership and unlawful occupation to consider whether the eviction would be fair and equitable in the given circumstances.
If a resident has lived in the property for more than six months, PIE directly requires the court to consider relevant circumstances, including the possibility of reasonable provision of land or alternative accommodation for relocation.
Pending Cases
Recent cases also show that landlords can find themselves in difficulty if they attempt to bypass the judicial process. In the case of Lukhele and Others versus Humayl Properties, residents were evicted from the property in Randburg while an eviction application against them was pending. The Gauteng High Court declared the eviction unlawful and ordered the immediate restoration of possession of the property. It also prohibited the property owners from interfering with the residents' possession by changing locks, disconnecting utilities, removing belongings, or intimidating them while the litigation was ongoing.
This decision clearly indicated that claims that residents owe money or have no right to stay do not give the owner the ability to circumvent a court eviction order.
Issues Concerning Children
In the eviction application, the dispute over the amount of the debt did not grant the tenant the right to remain after the lease agreement was cancelled. There were two minor children in the household, and the tenant argued that eviction would leave the family homeless. The court noted that the presence of children is an important factor in determining the structure of the eviction order, but this did not prevent the issuance of the eviction order. The landlord also agreed to temporarily remove the blacklisting of Seroka for two months to help her find alternative accommodation. Ultimately, the court granted the household time until September 21, 2026, to vacate, instead of the 30 days requested by the landlord. These two cases illustrate why a landlord cannot move directly from non-payment of rent to the physical eviction of a tenant.
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.
Unauthorized Actions
Simply demanding that a tenant move out is also insufficient to comply with PIE. In the case of Dikgwathle versus Phetheni, decided 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 when and where the proceedings will take place, 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.
No Loopholes
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 invasion and homeowner rights while maintaining protection against arbitrary eviction. They also propose changes to the issues the court must consider when making decisions on eviction applications, and provisions regarding alternative accommodation.
For tenants struggling to pay rent, recent court rulings 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. But until this process is completed and an eviction order is issued, the landlord cannot act arbitrarily.