04.10.2026 · Aleksandra Sandström · 50 views
For a long time, Estonian residential-rental law protected the tenant more strongly than the owner.
The logic is understandable: a flat is a tenant’s home, so the law must protect against arbitrary eviction, unjustified rent increases and terms that an owner may impose on the weaker side of a contract.
But the reverse problem appeared in practice. When a tenant stopped meeting their obligations, an owner could go for months without rent, continue to cover the costs of the property and still have rather limited options for ending the relationship quickly and getting their own property back.
The first serious steps towards a more balanced system were taken several years ago.
What changed in 2021
Before 2021, Estonia’s residential-rental rules had not changed substantially for almost two decades. The reform was intended to make rental relations more flexible and take both sides’ interests into account better.
The changes entered into force in January 2021.
In particular, the parties gained more scope to agree on the allocation of certain costs, the mechanism for changing rent and responsibility for breaches of specific obligations.
For owners, it was also important that the rules for terminating a lease in the event of arrears became less restrictive than before.
In other words, the state had already recognised that tenant protection is necessary, but an owner should not be left in a position where their property is used, obligations are ignored and there is almost no way to react promptly.
Now the next step is being discussed.
What is proposed now
In 2026, the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs put forward further changes to lease termination rules in cases of arrears.
This is still a bill, not the law currently in force.
One central idea is to reduce the level of debt after which an owner has grounds to terminate the agreement.
At present, one ground is rent or deposit arrears exceeding two months’ rent.
The proposal would reduce that threshold to more than one month’s rent.
For example, if a flat is rented for €800, the owner would not need to wait until unpaid rent exceeded €1,600. If the amendments are adopted, the ground could arise once the debt exceeds one month’s rent.
A similar approach is discussed for ancillary costs, building maintenance and improvement costs, and the deposit.
For an owner, this means being able to begin the legal procedure earlier, before the debt has grown much larger.
One missed payment would still not mean immediate eviction
It is important not to go to the other extreme.
The amendments would not mean that a tenant delays payment for a few days and the agreement can immediately be ended.
On the contrary, the bill provides an additional period to remedy the breach.
Where the current minimum is 14 days, the proposal is to increase it to 30 days.
The intended sequence would therefore be: a sufficient debt arises; the owner warns the tenant in writing and gives time to pay; and only if the breach is not remedied can the owner move on.
This shows that the aim is not to leave a tenant without protection. It is to let an owner react earlier to a genuinely problematic situation.
Terminating a lease and getting the flat back are not the same thing
In practice, the most difficult part often begins after the agreement has been terminated.
Even where the owner is right and the contract has lawfully ended, they cannot simply arrive, change the locks, remove belongings and declare the flat vacant.
If the tenant does not leave voluntarily, the matter may go to court and then to a bailiff.
The proposed changes are intended to shorten this route too.
The idea is that the court would set a specific deadline for vacating the premises in its decision. That would avoid adding another automatic waiting period at the enforcement stage.
So the reform is not only about termination; it is also about the owner actually recovering the flat.
Subtenants are a separate issue
Another situation can arise: the contract is with one person, the owner gets a court decision, but someone else is actually living in the flat, for example a subtenant.
The owner then risks a new dispute with a person with whom they never made a contract.
The proposed changes would allow the enforcement decision to extend to subtenants, so the owner would not have to start a separate process against every occupant.
In truly difficult cases, that could be an important amendment.
But the law cannot save a poor contract
And this is where I have a very recent example from practice.
A client recently took back a flat that had previously been rented out privately, before we began working together. The agreement was a basic template, not adapted to the specific property and without a detailed allocation of the tenant’s costs and obligations.
When the flat was vacated, the condition was, to put it mildly, difficult: dirt, stickers, damaged furniture and ruined mattresses. There were even marks from a ball on the ceiling—children had played in the flat and the consequences were everywhere.
The sofa had to be written off. Some items had to be restored or replaced. Naturally, the deposit did not come close to covering these costs.
At handover, the parties signed a document under which the tenant undertook to pay an additional amount for restoration of the premises.
It seemed straightforward. But then the tenant contacted a lawyer.
The lawyer found the weak point in the old agreement: it did not clearly state that the tenant had to pay the repair-fund charge. It had been discussed at the start of the lease, but the condition was not properly recorded in writing.
As a result, the former tenant requested a recalculation of those payments for five years.
Now there is a different legal dispute: on one side, a flat returned in poor condition and restoration costs; on the other, counterclaims by the tenant. Lawyers will determine the outcome, but the lesson is already clear.
The flat had been rented out privately, without a specialist and without a complete agreement reflecting the owner’s real risks. What looked like a saving at the start may now turn into much greater expense.
“Just give me your contract and I’ll rent it out myself”
There was another story very recently. A young man bought a flat through me and decided to rent his own property out himself. He quite calmly said: “Please give me your rental contract. I’ll do it myself.”
It sounds simple. But a good lease is also work product.
Our agreement was developed with a lawyer. We paid for that work. Over the years it has been revised for real situations from practice: clauses were added and clarified; wording changed after new cases and legal amendments.
It is not a file downloaded once from the internet. It is accumulated experience, legal work and part of a professional service.
So no, I do not give our agreement away free simply because someone has decided to rent a property privately. That is not greed; professional work has value too.
The law may become stricter, but an owner’s responsibility does not disappear
The state is indeed moving towards stronger protection for property owners. First came the 2021 changes. Now new amendments are being discussed that could allow an earlier response to arrears and a faster recovery of a flat in a conflict.
But no law replaces a sound agreement, tenant screening, a handover report with photographs, a clear description of who pays ancillary costs, the repair fund, building maintenance and other expenses, or timely action when the first problems appear.
While lawyers deal with such disputes, my advice to owners is simple: do not repeat someone else’s mistake. If you do not know all the nuances of renting, it is better to involve a specialist once and prepare the agreement properly than later to restore a flat, calculate losses and argue through lawyers about what was supposedly discussed verbally.
For a specific termination, always check the current version of the law and, if a dispute has already arisen, consult a lawyer.
Read next
Apartment prices in Tallinn: 8 districts and why I decided not to move to the city centre
Average asking prices for apartments in eight Tallinn districts in September 2026, and why a €350,000 budget did not settle the question of…
Viimsi Village: I Went to See the Development and Caught Myself Thinking — I Could Live Here
My first-hand review of Viimsi Village: build quality, location, who it suits and how I can represent you when buying a home in the developm…
The land that was more complicated than the house
Almost three hectares of roads, utility networks and protection zones, a second owner, a power of attorney from Germany and a hangar that en…
New stories and broker’s notes by email
You get an email when a new piece is published. No ads and no filler mailings.
Looking for a home? Get new properties that match your criteria Set up an alert →