Article 26 of Dubai's Tenancy Law
Article 26 is the short provision that gives the personal-use eviction ground its teeth. When a Dubai landlord recovers a property because they, or a first-degree relative, want to use it, the law does not simply take them at their word. Article 26 forbids re-letting that property to a new tenant for at least two years if it is residential, or three years if it is non-residential, measured from the day the owner takes it back — and if the landlord breaks that bar, the evicted tenant may ask the Rental Disputes Centre for fair compensation. This page explains exactly what the article says, what it means for landlords and tenants, when it bites, and how a compensation dispute is actually run.
- Applies only after a personal-use eviction under Article 25(2)
- Re-let bar: at least 2 years residential, 3 years non-residential
- Counted from the date the owner retakes possession
- Break it and the evicted tenant may claim fair compensation at the RDC
- Dubai-based, UAE-wide service
- Arabic & English
- Clear guidance on every document
- Direct request, no middlemen
What Article 26 does
Article 26 stops a Dubai landlord who evicted a tenant for personal use from re-letting the property to someone else too soon: at least two years must pass for residential property and three years for non-residential, counted from when the owner takes possession — and if the landlord breaks that bar, the evicted tenant may ask the Rental Disputes Centre for fair compensation.
Article 26 comes directly after the eviction article in Law No. 26 of 2007 (as amended by Law No. 33 of 2008), and it exists to support one specific ground. Personal use is one of the four on-expiry grounds in Article 25(2): the owner recovers the property because they, or a first-degree relative, genuinely wish to use it, and the owner must own no suitable alternative. Without a consequence attached, that ground would be simple to abuse — evict the sitting tenant, then quietly re-let the same property to a new tenant at a higher rent. Article 26 is the safeguard that closes off exactly that move.
The rule is narrow and precise. It is triggered only by an eviction carried out for personal use; it fixes two different waiting periods according to whether the property is residential or non-residential; and its only remedy is fair compensation, assessed case by case — not automatic reinstatement of the tenant and not a fixed penalty. The rest of this page unpacks each of those parts and shows how they play out for both sides.
What Article 26 actually says
In plain terms, Article 26 provides that where a tenant has been evicted so the owner can use the property personally, the owner must not re-let it to another (third-party) tenant before at least two years have passed for residential property, or three years for non-residential property, counted from the date the owner recovered possession. If the owner re-lets inside that period, the evicted tenant may apply to the Rental Disputes Centre for fair compensation. That is the whole architecture of the article: a trigger, a waiting period keyed to the property type, and a remedy.
The article deliberately does not spell out a formula for the compensation, and it does not fix a set sum. It leaves the amount to be assessed by the Centre in light of the circumstances of the case. The purpose is to compensate a tenant who was displaced under a personal-use reason that turned out not to be honoured — not to impose a standard fine. Two features carry all the weight: the length of the wait (two or three years) and the fact that the trigger is narrowly the personal-use ground, not every kind of eviction.
What Article 26 means in practice
In practice, Article 26 changes the arithmetic for an owner who is thinking about recovering a property "for personal use". The moment the owner takes the property back on that ground, a clock starts: two years for a home, three years for a shop, office or other non-residential unit. During that window the owner has wide freedom — they can live in the property, let a first-degree relative use it, leave it empty, sell it, or renovate it. The one thing they cannot do is hand it to a new tenant. Re-letting to a third party inside the window is the specific act the article prohibits.
For the tenant, the article turns a stated reason into an enforceable promise. If the notice said the recovery was for personal use, the tenant is entitled to expect the property to actually be used that way — not to see a new tenant move in a few months later. That gap between what the notice claimed and what actually happened is the heart of an Article 26 claim. The tenant does not have to prove the owner's state of mind at the time of the eviction; they point to the objective fact that the property was re-let inside the protected period.
The four moving parts of the rule
- The trigger — a personal-use eviction
- The bar attaches only where the tenant was evicted so the owner or a first-degree relative could use the property — the personal-use ground in Article 25(2). It is not triggered by eviction for sale, demolition and reconstruction, or comprehensive maintenance.
- The waiting period
- At least two years for residential property and at least three years for non-residential property. The correct figure turns entirely on how the property is used, so classifying it accurately is the first step in any Article 26 question.
- The start point
- The period runs from the date the owner retakes possession of the property, not from the date of the notice or the court order. Fixing that date is important, because it decides when the protected window opens and closes.
- The remedy — fair compensation
- If the bar is broken, the evicted tenant may claim fair compensation before the Rental Disputes Centre. It is not automatic: the tenant must bring the claim and prove the early re-letting, and the Centre assesses the amount on the facts.
What it means for each side
For the landlord
- The re-let bar begins the day possession is retaken — plan the property's use before you recover it
- Living in it, a first-degree relative using it, leaving it empty, selling or renovating are all fine
- Only re-letting to a new third-party tenant is barred — for 2 years residential or 3 years non-residential
- Re-letting early risks a fair-compensation claim and undermines the genuineness of the original ground
For the tenant
- A personal-use notice is a promise the property will be used as stated, not re-let to someone else
- If a new tenant moves in inside the bar, that fact supports a compensation claim
- Keep the original notice and note the date you handed over possession
- Compensation is assessed by the RDC on the facts; it is not automatic and must be claimed
Have a question about your case?
The two periods at a glance
| Property type | Re-letting bar | Counted from | If the bar is broken |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residential | At least 2 years | The date the owner retakes possession | The evicted tenant may claim fair compensation at the RDC |
| Non-residential | At least 3 years | The date the owner retakes possession | The evicted tenant may claim fair compensation at the RDC |
A safeguard, not an automatic penalty
It helps to see Article 26 for what it is: a check on misuse of the personal-use ground, not a fine that falls automatically. Breaking the bar does not, by itself, hand the tenant a fixed sum or return them to the property. What it does is open the door to a claim: the tenant must go to the Rental Disputes Centre, show that they were evicted for personal use and that the property was re-let inside the protected two or three years, and let the Centre assess a fair figure on the circumstances. No one — MANJAZ included — can promise a particular amount or a particular result, because the law leaves that to the Centre.
When it applies, and when a dispute arises
An owner recovers an apartment to live in, and does live in it for the next three years.
What is usually neededNo Article 26 problem arises. The property was used exactly as the personal-use notice stated, and no new tenant was brought in during the protected period, so there is nothing for the evicted tenant to claim.
A landlord evicts a family for "personal use", then lists the same villa for rent four months later.
What is usually neededThe villa is residential, so the bar is two years; re-letting after four months is well inside it. The evicted tenants may take the notice, the possession date and the new listing or tenancy to the RDC and claim fair compensation.
An owner recovers a shop for personal use, then re-lets it after two years.
What is usually neededFor non-residential property the bar is three years, so re-letting at two years is still inside the protected window. Timing is what decides the case: the same act would be lawful for a residential unit but not for this shop.
A tenant suspects the personal-use reason was never genuine, but the property sits empty.
What is usually neededLeaving the property empty is not re-letting, so Article 26 is not breached by that alone. The article bites on re-letting to a new tenant inside the period, which is the objective fact a claim is built on — not suspicion about motive.
From possession to the end of the bar
Eviction on the personal-use ground
The tenancy ends on expiry after a 12-month notarised notice stating personal use under Article 25(2). Only this ground triggers the Article 26 bar.
The owner retakes possession
On the day the owner actually recovers the property, the Article 26 clock starts. This possession date is the anchor for everything that follows.
The protected period runs
Two years for residential property or three years for non-residential. Genuine personal use, leaving it empty, selling or renovating are all permitted during this window.
The line that must not be crossed
Re-letting the property to a new third-party tenant before the period ends is the single act the article prohibits, whatever the new rent.
The tenant claims fair compensation
If the bar is broken, the evicted tenant applies to the Rental Disputes Centre, which assesses fair compensation on the circumstances of the case.
What an evicted tenant assembles for a claim
- The original personal-use eviction notice, with proof of how it was served
- The Ejari-registered tenancy contract that ended, showing the property and the dates
- The date possession was handed back to the owner, which anchors the period
- Evidence that a new tenant occupies the property inside the bar — a new Ejari record, a listing, or similar proof
- Material showing the loss the displacement caused, to support the compensation sought
- The tenant's Emirates ID or trade licence to identify the claimant
Common mistakes on both sides
The mistakeA landlord re-letting quickly after recovering the property for personal use.
The fixThe bar is two years for residential and three for non-residential; re-letting inside it invites a fair-compensation claim.
The mistakeA landlord assuming the bar only applies if the new rent is higher.
The fixAny re-letting to a third party inside the window can trigger the article, whatever the new rent; the prohibited act is re-letting itself.
The mistakeA tenant assuming compensation is automatic once the bar is broken.
The fixIt is not automatic: the tenant must file at the RDC, prove the early re-letting, and let the Centre assess a fair figure.
The mistakeA tenant discarding the old notice after moving out.
The fixKeep it: the stated ground and the possession date are the backbone of any Article 26 claim.
The mistakeEither side confusing the personal-use bar with eviction for sale or demolition.
The fixArticle 26 attaches only to the personal-use ground, not to eviction for sale, demolition and reconstruction, or comprehensive maintenance.
Questions and answers
It says that after a tenant is evicted for the owner's personal use, the owner cannot re-let the property to a new tenant for at least two years if it is residential, or three years if it is non-residential, counted from when the owner retakes possession. If the owner re-lets earlier, the evicted tenant may claim fair compensation before the Rental Disputes Centre.
At least two years for residential property and three years for non-residential property, measured from the date possession is retaken. The correct figure depends on how the property is used, so classifying it accurately matters.
The evicted tenant may apply to the Rental Disputes Centre for fair compensation. The remedy is not automatic — the tenant must bring the claim and prove that a new tenant was let in inside the two- or three-year protected period.
There is no fixed sum or formula in the law. The Rental Disputes Centre assesses fair compensation on the circumstances of each case, so no specific amount or result can be promised in advance.
Yes. Article 26 only bars re-letting the property to a new tenant. Living in it, letting a first-degree relative use it, selling it, renovating it, or leaving it empty are all permitted during the protected period.
No. The re-letting bar attaches specifically to the personal-use ground. Eviction for sale, for demolition and reconstruction, or for comprehensive maintenance are separate on-expiry grounds that do not trigger the Article 26 waiting period.
Where MANJAZ fits in
MANJAZ is a publisher and service provider, not a court and not a law firm, and it never guarantees a particular result. What we do is practical: review a personal-use notice and the tenancy file against the Article 25(2) and Article 26 requirements, help work out the possession date and whether a re-letting fell inside the protected period, prepare and organise the documents each side needs, and arrange certified and legal translation where the file must move between Arabic and other languages. Where a matter reaches the Rental Disputes Centre, we help follow up the procedures.
Whether you are an owner who wants to recover a property for genuine personal use without falling foul of the re-letting bar, or a tenant who was evicted for personal use and later sees a new tenant move in, the value is in getting the facts and the timing right early. The stated ground, the possession date, and the moment any new tenancy began are what most often decide an Article 26 dispute.
Official sources
- Dubai Legislation — Law No. 26 of 2007 (landlord & tenant) — original text; Arts 2, 3, 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 25, 26, 29, 36 amended by Law 33/2008
- Dubai Legislation — Law No. 33 of 2008 amending Law 26/2007
- Dubai Legislation — Decree No. 26 of 2013 (Rental Disputes Centre)
- Rental Disputes Centre — About the Centre
This content is for general information and awareness. It is based on the legislation and official sources available at the time of the last review, and procedures may differ according to the facts of each case and updates issued by the competent authorities. It is not legal advice, and MANJAZ is the publisher of this explanation, not the authority that issued the legislation.
Have a rental dispute in Dubai?
Send your case details and the documents you have — tenancy contract, Ejari, notices, correspondence — and MANJAZ will help you identify the right service and step.