Could PIE amendments give landlords faster relief?

Proposed changes could give financially distressed landlords a quicker route through the courts, but eviction would remain a strictly regulated legal process.

• Draft amendments could accelerate evictions where landlords prove serious financial hardship caused by unlawful occupation.
• Courts would retain oversight, and landlords would still need an eviction order before removing an occupier.
• Written leases, breach notices and financial records will remain essential for landlords needing to prove their case.

For South African landlords, few situations are as financially damaging as a tenant who stops paying rent but refuses to leave.

The rental income disappears, but the property’s expenses do not. Rates, levies, insurance, maintenance and monthly bond repayments continue, potentially leaving the landlord to carry the property for months without income.

Consider an investor who owns one rental apartment financed with a home loan. If the tenant stops paying, the landlord may lose the income intended to cover the bond and levies.

Even after the lease has been lawfully cancelled, the landlord cannot simply change the locks, remove the tenant’s belongings or cut off essential services.

The occupier may no longer have a contractual right to remain in the property, but only a court can grant an eviction order. This is why the proposed amendments to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, better known as PIE are being closely watched by landlords, property managers and investors.

‍

“Most landlords understand that tenants need legal protection,” says Grant Smee, CEO of Only Realty Property Group. 

‍

“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.”

‍

When a non-paying tenant becomes an unlawful occupier

‍Non-payment does not automatically give a landlord the right to evict a tenant. The landlord must first follow the lease and the applicable legislation. This generally involves notifying the tenant of the breach, allowing the required period for the breach to be remedied and, if payment is not made, lawfully cancelling the lease.

Once the lease has been validly cancelled, the tenant’s contractual right to occupy the property ends. If the tenant refuses to leave, the landlord must approach a court for an eviction order under PIE.

The process is deliberately structured to prevent self-help evictions. A landlord who changes the locks, removes possessions, intimidates an occupier or unlawfully disconnects water or electricity could face legal action even where rent is substantially in arrears.

The financial pressure can become severe. A landlord may be servicing a bond and paying municipal charges, insurance and sectional-title levies while simultaneously funding legal proceedings and receiving no rental income.

For a small investor with one or two properties, that pressure can threaten the viability of the entire portfolio.

Why PIE exists

‍PIE was introduced in 1998 to prevent arbitrary evictions and address South Africa’s history of forced removals.

At its core, the legislation ensures that nobody may be evicted from a home without a court order. It also requires courts to determine whether an eviction would be “just and equitable” after considering the circumstances of the occupier and property owner.

Relevant factors can include the period of occupation, the rights and needs of children, older people, people with disabilities and households headed by women, as well as the possible availability of alternative accommodation.

‍

“That historical context matters,” says Smee. “No one wants to return to a system where people can be removed from their homes without due process. But due process should not mean that landlords have no practical protection when a tenant stops paying and refuses to leave.”

‍

PIE therefore performs an essential constitutional function. The difficulty lies in balancing protection against arbitrary eviction with the legitimate rights of owners who may be suffering mounting financial losses.

What the proposed amendments could mean

‍Human Settlements Minister Thembi Simelane released the draft PIE Amendment Bill for public comment in April 2026 following Cabinet approval. The proposed amendments do not remove occupiers’ legal protections and would not allow landlords to bypass the courts.

‍

“You’ll still need a court order to evict a tenant,” Smee explains. “However, the changes could make the eviction process clearer and, in some cases, give landlords greater financial protection.”

‍

One of the most relevant proposals for private landlords is the possibility of expedited proceedings where an owner can demonstrate undue financial hardship resulting from unlawful occupation.

This could be especially important for smaller landlords who depend on rental income to meet bond repayments and other unavoidable property expenses.

It would not mean that every landlord experiencing arrears automatically qualifies for a faster eviction. The landlord would need to place credible evidence of the financial hardship before the court, while the court would still consider the occupier’s circumstances and the broader requirements of justice and equity.

The proposed amendments may also make an occupier’s intentions an express consideration. In practice, this could help courts distinguish between genuine hardship and bad-faith occupation, for example, where a person can pay but deliberately withholds rent, repeatedly breaks payment arrangements or remains in the property after the lease has been validly cancelled.

Another proposed change concerns alternative accommodation. Where temporary accommodation is ordered, courts may be given clearer authority to define how long that arrangement must continue, rather than leaving the obligation open-ended.

‍

“For landlords, the benefit of these amended laws is not that evictions suddenly become easy,” says Smee. “The benefit is that the process may become more certain.”

‍

A landlord’s strongest protection is preparation

‍While the proposed amendments move through the legislative process, landlords must continue working within the existing law. The best protection is a complete, accurate and dated paper trail.

‍

“The landlords who are best protected are usually the ones with the best records,” says Smee. “That starts long before an eviction application.”

‍

Landlords should ensure that they:

• Use a properly drafted and signed lease agreement.
• Keep proof of rental payments and missed payments.
• Issue breach notices promptly and correctly.
• Record all warnings, extensions and payment arrangements in writing.
• Retain municipal accounts, levy statements and insurance records.
• Keep bond statements and evidence of other property expenses.
• Document the rental income lost through continued non-payment.
• Obtain legal advice before cancelling a lease or starting eviction proceedings.
• Never resort to changing locks, removing possessions or disconnecting essential services.

Landlords should also act before arrears become unmanageable.

‍

“One missed payment is a warning sign. Two or three missed payments can quickly become a much bigger legal and financial problem,” Smee says.

‍

“The sooner a landlord deals with non-payment formally and correctly, the stronger their position is likely to be.”

‍

Informal payment arrangements can also create problems when they are not documented. If a landlord agrees to reduced rent, an extended deadline or a repayment plan, the terms should be recorded and accepted in writing.

‍

“Landlords often try to be reasonable, and that is not a bad thing,” says Smee. “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.”

‍

Greater certainty, but no shortcuts

‍The proposed PIE amendments attempt to address a genuine imbalance: occupiers must remain protected from arbitrary eviction, but property owners should not be forced to absorb unlimited losses while navigating an uncertain legal process.

If enacted, the changes could give courts clearer tools to deal with bad-faith occupation, severe landlord hardship and temporary alternative accommodation.

They will not make eviction automatic. They will not allow landlords to take the law into their own hands. And they will not replace the need for a valid lease, proper notices, reliable records and professional legal advice.

‍

“Property remains one of the most powerful ways to build wealth, but it is not a passive income stream when things go wrong,” Smee concludes.

‍

“If these amendments are passed, they may give landlords a stronger route through the courts. But the landlord still needs to arrive there prepared.”

‍