Russia Rental Laws: Pro-landlord, Neutral or Pro-tenant?

Russia's landlord and tenant laws are judged by the Global Property Guide to be Pro-Tenant between landlord and tenant. In practice, residential landlords may face delays and legal hurdles when enforcing eviction, while commercial landlords typically enjoy a more straightforward process. Overall, the system tries to balance interests but leans toward protecting residential tenants from eviction and instability, while giving commercial landlords broader contractual freedom. Russia’s rental laws can be summarized as pro-tenant in residential housing and pro-landlord in commercial leasing.

Rents: Can landlord and tenant freely agree rents in Russia?

Yes, in Russia, landlords and tenants can freely agree on rent in private leases. The rent amount, frequency, and terms can be customized by the parties, subject only to general legal principles and ruble payment rules. The landlord, Russia, can increase the rent, but only under certain conditions. The ability to raise rent depends primarily on what is written in the lease agreement. Written agreements and clear terms are essential to avoid disputes. 

Deposits

There is no legal limit on how much a landlord can charge as a security deposit (also called a "guarantee payment") in private residential or commercial leases. The amount is negotiated between the landlord and tenant and typically specified in the lease agreement. For residential leases, landlords usually ask for a deposit equal to one month's rent. In some cases — especially with furnished apartments or luxury properties — landlords may request two months' rent or more.

What rights do landlords and tenants have in Russia, especially as to duration of contract, and eviction?

Regarding the duration of lease contracts, landlords and tenants have the freedom to agree on the term. Fixed-term leases are common, often lasting 11 months to avoid mandatory state registration, which applies to leases longer than 12 months. Open-ended or indefinite leases are also permitted, especially in residential settings. If a tenant remains in the property after the fixed term expires and the landlord does not object, the lease may automatically renew under the same terms as an open-ended lease.

When it comes to eviction, landlords can only evict tenants under certain conditions and through strict legal procedures. A landlord may seek eviction if the tenant fails to pay rent for more than two consecutive months, damages the property, violates usage rules, or uses the property for illegal purposes. However, eviction from residential property requires a court order; any attempt to evict a tenant without court approval, such as changing locks or cutting off utilities, is illegal. For open-ended leases, the landlord must provide at least three months’ written notice to terminate the lease without cause, while fixed-term leases usually end on the agreed date without notice unless otherwise specified. Additionally, tenants in protected categories, such as minors, disabled individuals, or pensioners, benefit from stronger eviction protections, which may involve longer notice periods and more stringent court procedures.

How effective is the Russian legal system?

Overall, while the Russian legal system provides a formal and structured eviction process, its practical effectiveness for residential landlords is limited by slow procedures and tenant protections. Landlords often see delays and factor this into their rental terms by requiring deposits, advance payments, or short-term leases. In contrast, commercial landlords generally find eviction enforcement to be more reliable and timely.

Legislation

Tenant and landlord relations in Russia are primarily governed by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.

History

Since the end of the Soviet Union, the government's main policy has been to establish market relations throughout the housing sector. All residents in multi-apartment blocks were granted the right to privatize the apartment in which they were living, for free. Over 70% of all housing stock is now in private hands.

This policy has left an enormous residue of problems. It was assumed that with this transfer, the new owners would take over the management and maintenance of the housing stock. They have not. No legal structure to support tenants' associations is in place. The new owners have very limited means, so in practice, the municipal authorities continue to manage and maintain the housing stock. Only 1% of the total housing stock is managed by homeowners' associations.

There is an almost total absence of maintenance. The municipally owned management and maintenance companies (zheks) are monopolistic, highly inefficient, and grossly overstaffed, and are perhaps 20% underfunded.

Much of the present housing stock was badly built and is in poor repair. Much will need replacing within 10 years, especially the panel-built apartments. This is unlikely to happen, so the present stock will further decay.

In the Soviet Union, all housing was for rent, but the rents were infinitely small, at R0.1 per sq. m., compared to utility charges of R24 per sq. m. (Russian citizens pay some of the highest utility charges in the world). So there has been no benefit to privatization - ownership of the new apartments is not registered and cannot even be used as collateral - and many tenants are now refusing to be privatized.

The formal law tends to be self-contradictory. The Law on the Fundamentals of Housing Policy (1993) began a program to increase rents, introduce housing allowances, introduce competitive bidding procedures, clarify property rights, and improve possibilities for mortgage lending. This became part of the Civil Code. But its provisions flatly contradict the 1983 Housing Code, a socialist code which remains in force. Whether regional or municipal authorities have the power to act is often in doubt. Who owns the land or the building is frequently in doubt. Powers to evict tenants are almost non-existent. Money is scarce, and the buildings are old.

Homeowners' associations are being set up in new blocks of apartments. They are rubber stamps for the developer, who monopolizes the provision of services, even so, better than what came before.