Qatar Amends Tenancy Law
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.06.26
The State of Qatar has enacted Law No. (8) of 2026, amending certain provisions of Law No. (4) of 2008 concerning the Leasing of Real Estate.
Key Takeaways
- Introduction of a flat rate QAR 250 lease registration fee.
- Revising procedures governing rental disputes, appeals, and penalties, including the expedition of the adjudication process.
- Expanding mandatory lease registration requirements for certain beneficiaries of state property.
The Law’s Revisions
According to the Official Gazette issued by the Qatar Ministry of Justice, Issue No. (13) of 2026, the law provides, inter alia, as follows:
New Article (20), Clause (2):
The Office shall collect a registration fee of QR 250 (two hundred and fifty Qatari riyals) for each transaction involving the registration of a real estate lease agreement, for each residential, commercial or other unit specified in the building permit of the property. This fee may be amended by a decision of the Council of Ministers upon the proposal of the Minister.
New Article (22):
The Committee shall have exclusive jurisdiction to expeditiously adjudicate all disputes arising from lease relationships between landlords and tenants, including disputes arising from the cases exempted under Article (2) of this Law.
Lawsuits filed by interested parties before the courts concerning disputes falling within the Committee's jurisdiction shall not be admissible unless an application has first been submitted to the Committee and a decision has been rendered thereon.
The Council of Ministers shall, by decision, determine the procedures for hearing applications, the rules and procedures to be followed before the Committee, the mechanism for enforcing its decisions, and the fees to be collected for applications submitted to it.
New Article (24):
Interested parties may appeal the Committee's decisions before the Court of Appeal within 15 days from the date of the Committee's decision if rendered in the presence of the parties, or from the day following notification of the decision if rendered in absentia.
New Article (26 bis):
Without prejudice to any more severe penalty prescribed under another law, any person who violates the provisions of Article (3), second paragraph, or Article (20 bis) of this Law shall be punished with a fine not exceeding QR 10,000 (ten thousand Qatari riyals).
New Article (20 bis):
Without prejudice to the provisions of Article (2) of this Law, beneficiaries of public and private State property shall register lease agreements concluded with third parties with the Office, where their contracts permit such leasing, within two months from the date the lease agreement is concluded. Such agreements shall be exempt from the registration fee prescribed under Article (20) of this Law.
We will provide a further update in a few months once the practical workings of the law’s amendments have been considered.
If you need any further information on this matter, or any related issue, please feel free to reach out to Matthew Williams, counsel at Crowell & Moring at matwilliams@crowell.com or at +974 4453 2517.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.26.26
D.C. Circuit Upholds Designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances
In a significant and unanimous ruling, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) final rule designating perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”) as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), denying the petitions of seven industry groups seeking to overturn that designation.[1] CERCLA, also known as the “Superfund Statute,” allows EPA to require potentially responsible parties to fund cleanup of hazardous substances.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.26.26
The Risky Fifth: A Long Hot Summer in Congressional Jurisprudence
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26
DOJ Signals Increased Antitrust Scrutiny of Algorithmic Pricing in Willow Bridge Decision
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26
Recent Court Decision Highlights Effectiveness of “Second Bite” Protests

