Legal Department 2015/7331 E., 2015/9163 K.
“Case Law Text”
COURT: Istanbul 5th Civil Court of Peace
DATE: 12/11/2013
NUMBER: 2013/657-2013/740
The decision issued by the local court regarding the eviction case with the above date and number was appealed by the defendant within the time limit and by the plaintiff after the time limit had expired. All documents in the file were read and the necessary deliberations were made.
The dispute concerns the eviction case based on the plaintiff’s claim that the lease agreement had become unbearable for him. The court ruled for the eviction of the tenant, and the ruling was appealed by both the defendant and the plaintiff.
1-The ruling was served on the plaintiff’s attorney, who filed the appeal, on 04/02/2014. and since the appeal petition was filed on 06/03/2014, after the eight-day statutory period had expired, the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeal is not within the time limit pursuant to Article 432/4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Judgment Consolidation Decision No. 1989/3, 1990/4 dated 01/06/1990.
2-Regarding the defendant’s attorney’s appeal: The plaintiff’s attorney stated in the complaint that he initiated proceedings against the defendant for non-payment of rent and that the rent was paid after the proceedings were initiated. and that the site management also initiated enforcement proceedings against the tenant due to non-payment of site fees. The plaintiff’s attorney further stated that, despite the one-year lease agreement expiring and the tenant being notified of the termination of the agreement, the tenant did not vacate the premises, rendering the lease agreement unbearable for the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s attorney requested the eviction of the tenant pursuant to Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. The defendant argued for the dismissal of the case.
Extraordinary termination is a means of terminating continuous debt relationships of definite and indefinite duration prematurely and prospectively for just cause. The characteristic of extraordinary termination, as opposed to ordinary termination, is that its validity is based on a contractual or legal cause for termination (just cause). Extraordinary reasons are listed in the law, one of which is the termination of the lease agreement for important reasons as regulated in Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. For any reason, if a situation of intolerability arises for either party in a lease agreement that is part of a continuous obligation agreement, that party cannot be expected to remain bound by the agreement. Inadmissibility within the scope of important reasons is a situation where the party cannot tolerate the contract. An example of this situation is the transfer of the tenant employee to another city. In such a case, the continuation of the lease agreement is considered inadmissible for the tenant employee. Where hardship exists, either party may exercise the right to terminate the contract at any time, provided they comply with the notice period. This general right of termination applies to all types of lease relationships, including residential and commercial leases, regardless of whether the contract is fixed-term or indefinite. In order to exercise this type of termination regulated in Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), there must be a valid lease agreement between the parties, there must be justifiable reasons that make the continuation of the lease agreement unreasonable for the parties, and the lessor and lessee, based on the justifiable reason, must give notice of termination in accordance with Article 329 (three months) and Article 330 (three days) of the TBK. Article 330 (three days) of the Turkish Code of Obligations.
Regarding the specific case; there is no dispute between the parties regarding the lease agreement dated 9/7/2012 and valid for one year, which is relied upon in the case and forms the basis of the judgment. The leased property is a residence and is subject to the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 regarding the lease of residences and covered workplaces. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff relied on the failure to pay rent and maintenance fees regularly as the reason why the contract had become unbearable for him. The tenant’s default in paying the rent or ancillary expenses is regulated in Article 315 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Separately, Article 352/2 of the Turkish Code of Obligations regulates termination due to two justified warnings in the event of failure to pay the rent or ancillary expenses on time. The plaintiff does not rely on these grounds for eviction. Therefore, while the court should have dismissed the case based on the grounds relied upon by the plaintiff (Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations), it was incorrect to accept the case as an eviction case due to default as stated in the written decision.
The judgment should therefore be overturned.
CONCLUSION: For the reason explained in paragraph 1 above, the plaintiff’s appeal is not timely, and the appeal request is therefore REJECTED. For the reasons explained in paragraph 2, the defendant’s appeal is accepted, and pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HUMK) and the provision of the transitional Article 3 added by Law No. 6217, the judgment shall be REVERSED in accordance with Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon request, the appeal fee collected in advance from the parties shall be refunded to the appellants. It was unanimously decided on 10/27/2015.
