Eviction Of The Tenant – Supreme Court Decision
Legal Department 2016/4558 E., 2016/3822 K.
“Case Law Text”
COURT: Conciliation Court
CASE TYPE: Eviction of tenant
The decision issued by the local court regarding the eviction case with the above date and number was appealed by the plaintiff and defendant within the specified time limit. All documents in the file were read, and the necessary deliberations were made.
The case concerns the new owner’s request for termination of the lease agreement and eviction of the tenant due to substantial repairs and renovations. The court ruled that, since the property was vacated after the lawsuit was filed, the case was moot and there was no need to issue a decision. It also ruled that the defendant should pay the court costs for initiating the lawsuit and awarded the plaintiff a fixed attorney’s fee. The plaintiff and the defendant’s attorney appealed the ruling regarding the court costs.
Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, titled “Requirements arising from the lessor, reconstruction, and improvement,” states: “If the lessor is compelled to use the leased property as a residence or workplace for himself, his spouse, descendants, ascendants, or other persons whom he is legally obligated to support, due to necessity, and if the leased property requires substantial repair, extension, or alteration for the purpose of reconstruction or improvement, expansion, or alteration of the leased property for the purpose of rebuilding or renovating it, and if the use of the leased property is impossible during these works, the lessor may terminate the lease by filing a lawsuit within one month starting from the date to be determined in accordance with the notice period and termination period stipulated in the general provisions regarding leases in fixed-term leases at the end of the term and in indefinite-term leases.”
Pursuant to Article 331/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; if, due to an event arising after the lawsuit has been filed, there is no longer any need or reason to render a positive or negative decision on the claim that is the subject of the lawsuit, the lawsuit may be deemed to have become moot. In such a case, the court must rule that there is no need to decide on the merits of the case, as it is a declaratory judgment, and must decide on the litigation costs based on the merits of the case at the time the lawsuit was filed.
Article 6 of the Minimum Attorney Fee Schedule stipulates that “If the dispute is resolved before the preliminary examination record is signed due to the case becoming moot, waiver, acceptance, settlement, or any other reason, half of the fees determined by the provisions of the schedule shall be awarded; if it is resolved after the preliminary examination record is signed, the full amount shall be awarded. This article does not apply to contractual attorney’s fees calculated by the courts.”
In our case, the plaintiff’s attorney stated in the complaint that the defendant was the tenant of the property under a lease agreement dated August 18, 2010, that the plaintiff purchased the property on December 3, 2013, that he notified the defendant of the purchase, and that he informed the defendants that the property needed to be vacated due to substantial repairs and renovations
and therefore the tenant must vacate the property. The defendant’s attorney argued that the notice was sent by the previous owner and that the plaintiff was informed that the property would be vacated on August 18, 2014, and requested that the case be dismissed.
In the case dismissed by the court, the court must decide on the litigation costs and attorney’s fees, taking into account the merits of the plaintiff and the defendant. In the expert report dated July 7, 2014, obtained as a result of the court’s investigation, it is noted that the property in question is registered as a cultural asset that must be protected and, in this context, is considered a historical artifact. Therefore, it is stated that a decision on whether to accept the case can be made only if a new renovation project approved by the municipality is obtained, a new renovation permit is obtained accordingly, and the decision of the Istanbul No. 7 Regional Council for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets, which approved this project, is known. In this case, it is not correct to decide on the court costs and attorney’s fees in writing without conducting the necessary investigation, on the grounds that the defendant caused the lawsuit to be filed without addressing the deficiencies indicated by the experts.
The judgment should therefore be overturned.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, the appeal objections are accepted, and in accordance with the provision of the temporary Article 3 added to the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 by Law No. 6217, the ruling is REVERSED in accordance with Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure. and the advance appeal fee, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant. This decision was made unanimously on May 10, 2016.
