Legal Department 2013/14078 E., 2014/6778 K.
“Case Law Text”
COURT: Bursa 4th Civil Court of First Instance
DATE: 06/27/2013
NUMBER: 2010/37-2013/621
The decision rendered by the local court in the compensation case referenced above by date and number was appealed by the defendant within the prescribed time limit. All documents in the file were reviewed, and the matter was duly considered.
The case concerns a claim for compensation due to wrongful termination. The court decided to partially accept the case, and the defendant’s representative appealed the ruling.
The plaintiff’s attorney stated in the petition that the real estate in question was leased to F..K.., who is not a party to the lawsuit, that it was transferred to his client on 10/22/1997, that the lease agreement was renewed annually, and that the most recent lease agreement between the parties was dated 01/01/2004. that the defendant terminated the agreement without cause, requesting the eviction of the property, and that proceedings had been initiated for the administrative eviction of the property in accordance with Law No. 3091. stating that the client was forced to vacate the property in the face of this coercion and suffered damages due to the unjust eviction, requesting that the defendant be ordered to pay compensation of TL 10,000. In the response, the defendant’s attorney stated that the defendant vacated the property of his own accord after being notified of the council’s decision and argued that the case should be dismissed. The court ruled that the defendant had unjustly terminated the lease agreement, that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation, and that the monthly rent of 2,000 TL paid by the plaintiff, in accordance with Article 264/2 of the Turkish Civil Code, and that the amount of compensation to be collected from the defendant was 10,000 TL, in accordance with the plaintiff’s claim.
There is no dispute between the parties regarding the lease agreement dated April 1, 2004, with a term of one year. It is understood that the defendant decided not to renew the lease agreement by a council decision, and that the plaintiff, who did not vacate the leased property in accordance with this decision, requested that proceedings be initiated in accordance with Article 75 of Law No. 2886. Upon this notification, the plaintiff vacated and surrendered the property on February 7, 2005. The court accepted that Law No. 2886 could not be applied to municipal properties as of the date the action was taken and that the termination was not based on just cause.
During the term of a lease agreement for a specific period, if significant reasons arise that make the lease relationship intolerable, the agreement may be terminated pursuant to Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Article 264 of the Turkish Civil Code). requires that the lease relationship become intolerable due to important reasons and that notice of termination be given in accordance with the periods specified in Articles 330 and 368 of the Turkish Civil Code (Articles 262 and 285 of the Turkish Civil Code). In this case, Article 331 of the Turkish Civil Code is not applicable.
In accordance with the principle of contractual obligation, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract they have entered into, and as a rule, termination of the contract before its term is not possible. Otherwise,
the party terminating the contract without a valid reason shall be liable for compensation. The lessor’s unilateral termination of the contract and failure to deliver the workplace covered by the contract to the lessee constitutes a breach of contract in this context. In this context, the defendant is liable for damages. Pursuant to Article 114/2 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the provisions regarding tort liability shall also apply by analogy to cases of breach of contract. Therefore, Article 52 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, which regulates the reduction of compensation in the event of liability arising from the defendant’s breach of the lease agreement, shall apply. In this context, the plaintiff tenant is also obliged to make the necessary efforts to find a new workplace where he can continue his activities as a tenant after the termination. As a result, it is necessary to determine the period within which the plaintiff can re-rent another workplace where he can continue his activities as a tenant under the same terms and conditions, and the defendant landlord must be held liable for the loss of income during this period. The court did not make a determination or assessment regarding the period within which the plaintiff could re-lease a new business premises where he could continue his activities as a tenant under similar conditions following the termination. The amount of compensation that the plaintiff may claim from the defendant lessor due to the unjust termination must be determined in accordance with the principles and rules explained above. After this has been done, the court must render a decision on the claim; it is incorrect to render a written judgment based on an incomplete examination.
The judgment must 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 judgment 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 26, 2014.