Behind on rent? You can be kicked out - IOL

Where an occupier has lived on a property for more than six months, a pending law expressly requires the court to consider relevant circumstances. While this is a genuine eviction, this image is for illustrative purposes only as the context of the eviction is not fully known.

South African tenants are coming under increasing pressure as rents continue to rise, with 16.9% in arrears in the second quarter of 2026.

The latest PayProp Rental Index shows the proportion of tenants in arrears edged up from 16.7% in the first quarter, although it remains close to historic lows. Tenants who were behind owed an average 73.5% of one month's rent, down from 74.3% in the previous quarter.

Average residential rent reached a record R9,715 in the second quarter, an increase of R133 from the previous quarter and 5.2% higher than a year earlier.

For tenants who cannot keep up with their payments, however, falling into arrears does not mean a landlord can simply throw them out.

Two recent High Court judgments show both that failure to pay rent can ultimately lead to eviction and that landlords must follow the required process before removing someone from their home.

In a judgment handed down last week, the KwaZulu-Natal High Court ordered tenants who had occupied a Durban property without paying rent for more than 12 years to leave.

The dispute in Strydom N.O and Another v Phili and Others stretched back to 2014, when an earlier attempt to cancel the lease failed.

In 2019, the High Court found that cancellation had been unlawful because the landlord had not given the tenants sufficient notice to remedy their breach before terminating the lease.

The tenants remained in the property and continued not paying rent. In 2025, the landlords again gave notice of the breach, allowing a month for it to be remedied before cancelling the lease and giving the tenants another month to leave.

This time, the court found the lease had been lawfully cancelled. The court said the tenants had advanced no valid legal argument entitling them to remain in the property without paying rent and ordered them to leave by 15 October 2026.

Non-payment can lead to a lease being cancelled and, ultimately, a court ordering a tenant to leave.

A Johannesburg case decided on 23 July 2026 reached a similar result after a tenant fell into arrears.

In RED R7 (Pty) Ltd v Seroka and Another, the Gauteng High Court heard that the tenant had defaulted shortly after taking occupation. Demands and cancellation notices followed, with the landlord eventually launching eviction proceedings in July 2024.

By April 2025, the landlord's account showed arrears of R188,579.96, although the tenant disputed the amount and argued that deductions from prepaid electricity purchases had not been properly accounted for.

The case also showed that an eviction court does not necessarily have to settle every financial dispute between landlord and tenant before deciding whether the tenant can remain in the property.

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 unlawful occupier can be evicted.

The Constitutional Court dealt with the principles underlying the legislation more than two decades ago in Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers.

The court found that PIE requires courts to go beyond establishing ownership and unlawful occupation and consider whether an eviction would be just and equitable in the circumstances.

Where an occupier has lived on a property for more than six months, PIE expressly requires the court to consider relevant circumstances, including whether land or alternative accommodation can reasonably be made available for relocation.

Recent cases show landlords can also come unstuck if they try to bypass the court process.

In Lukhele and Others v Humayl Properties, occupiers were removed from a Randburg property while an eviction application against them was still pending. The Gauteng High Court found the eviction unlawful and ordered that possession of the property be restored immediately.

It also prohibited the property owners from interfering with the occupants' possession by changing locks, disconnecting utilities, removing belongings or intimidating them while the eviction proceedings were pending.

The judgment made clear that allegations that occupants owed money or had no right to remain did not allow the owner to bypass a court-ordered eviction.

rguments over electricity deductions in those proceedings.

For the eviction application, the dispute over the size of the arrears did not give her a right to remain after the lease had been cancelled.

The household included two minor children and the tenant argued eviction would leave the family homeless. The court said the presence of children was an important consideration when deciding how an eviction order should be structured, but did not prevent an eviction from being granted.

The landlord also agreed to temporarily lift Seroka's blacklisting for two months to help her secure alternative accommodation. The court ultimately gave the household until 21 September 2026 to leave, rather than the 30 days sought by the landlord.

The two cases illustrate why a landlord cannot move directly from unpaid rent to physically removing a tenant.

PIE requires the occupier and municipality to receive written and effective notice of the eviction proceedings at least 14 days before the hearing.

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 unlawful occupier can be evicted.

The Constitutional Court dealt with the principles underlying the legislation more than two decades ago in Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers.

The court found that PIE requires courts to go beyond establishing ownership and unlawful occupation and consider whether an eviction would be just and equitable in the circumstances.

Where an occupier has lived on a property for more than six months, PIE expressly requires the court to consider relevant circumstances, including whether land or alternative accommodation can reasonably be made available for relocation.

Recent cases show landlords can also come unstuck if they try to bypass the court process.

In Lukhele and Others v Humayl Properties, occupiers were removed from a Randburg property while an eviction application against them was still pending. The Gauteng High Court found the eviction unlawful and ordered that possession of the property be restored immediately.

It also prohibited the property owners from interfering with the occupants' possession by changing locks, disconnecting utilities, removing belongings or intimidating them while the eviction proceedings were pending.

The judgment made clear that allegations that occupants owed money or had no right to remain did not allow the owner to bypass a court-ordered eviction.

Recent cases show landlords can also come unstuck if they try to bypass the court process for evictions.

Nor is simply telling a tenant to leave necessarily enough to comply with PIE.

In Dikgwathle v Phetheni, decided on 12 June 2026, the North West High Court overturned an eviction after finding that a private notice to vacate was not the court-authorised notice required under the legislation.

PIE requires the occupier and municipality to receive written and effective notice of the eviction proceedings at least 14 days before the hearing.

Among other things, the notice must state when and where the proceedings will be heard, set out the grounds for the proposed eviction and tell occupiers that they are entitled to appear before the court and defend the case and, where necessary, apply for legal aid.

The court found those requirements had not been met and set the eviction order aside.

The rules governing evictions could also change. Cabinet approved publication of the draft Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Amendment Bill for public comment at its 25 March 2026 meeting.

The proposed changes are intended to address illegal land invasions and property owners' rights while retaining protections against arbitrary eviction. They also propose changes to matters courts must consider when deciding eviction applications and provisions dealing with alternative accommodation.

For tenants struggling to pay their rent, the recent judgments draw the distinction between owing money and being evicted.

Non-payment can lead to a lease being cancelled and, ultimately, a court ordering a tenant to leave. But until that process has been followed and an eviction order granted, a landlord cannot take the law into their own hands.