In Turkish Law, the reasons for the termination of the lease agreement are listed as limited in the Turkish Code of Obligations. Therefore, it is possible to terminate the lease agreement only based on the reasons specified in the law. One of the reasons that terminates the rental agreement is an eviction lawsuit filed due to necessity.

Turkish Code of Obligations regulates the termination of the lease agreement due to necessity for two different situations. The first of these situations is the need of the lessor, reconstruction and zoning. In accordance with Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations;

The lessor, the lease agreement;

1. If he/she is obliged to use the rented property due to housing or workplace needs for himself/herself, his/her spouse, descendants, superiors or other persons he/she is obliged to look after by law,

2. If the leased property requires substantial repair, expansion or alteration for reconstruction or development purposes and it is impossible to use the leased property during these works,

In case of fixed-term contracts, it can be terminated at the end of the period, in indefinite-term contracts, by filing a lawsuit within one month starting from the date to be determined by complying with the termination period and the periods foreseen for notice of termination in accordance with the general provisions regarding rent.

The second reason for the termination of the lease agreement due to necessity is the need of the new owner. Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations;

If the person who subsequently acquires the leased property is obliged to use it for himself/herself, his/her spouse, his/her descendants, his/her ancestors or other persons s/he is obliged to look after by law due to housing or workplace needs, s/he will open the lease agreement six months later, provided that s/he notifies the tenant in writing of the situation within one month starting from the date of acquisition. It may end with a lawsuit.

The person who subsequently acquires the leased property may, if s/he wishes, exercise his/her right to terminate the contract due to necessity by filing a lawsuit within one month starting from the end of the contract period.

It is valid.

In its decisions, the Supreme Court states that in eviction cases filed due to necessity, it must be proven that the need is real, sincere and mandatory. Supreme Court of Appeals 6th Civil Chamber, Dated 09.05.2011, Merits No: 2010/14205 and Decision No: 2011/6059 Decided as Follows;

In cases based on the allegation of need, in order to decide on release, it must be proven that the need is real, sincere and mandatory. It was reported that the plaintiff’s wife would be selling mobile phones and computers on the property in question and an eviction request was made due to the need for a business. The plaintiff’s witnesses heard confirmed that the needy person had no job. Since the person in need is idle, the court should make an on-site survey through an expert, determine whether the rented property is suitable for the work to be done, and make a decision based on the result. However, it is not correct to decide to reject the request based on the need for a workplace with written justification, even though it cannot be proven that the plaintiff has another place that he can allocate to the need.

The verdict should be overturned for these reasons.

In addition, in terms of eviction cases filed due to workplace needs, the Supreme Court of Appeals is of the opinion that real estate owned by real persons and which are the subject of a lease agreement cannot be the subject of an eviction case due to company needs. This issue is clearly understood from Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. According to the provision;

The lessor may terminate the lease agreement through a lawsuit only if he is obliged to use the leased property for himself, his spouse, his descendants, his ancestors or other persons he is obliged to look after by law, due to the need for a residence or workplace.

As can be understood from the letter of the law, the lessor cannot terminate the lease agreement due to a company’s need for a workplace. The lessor may terminate the lease agreement through litigation only due to the need for housing and workplace for the mentioned persons. Supreme Court of Appeals 6th Civil Chamber, In Its Decision Dated 22.10.2015, Merits No: 2015/8603 and Decision No: 2015/8905;

It is understood that the immovable property was requested to be evacuated due to the needs of the plaintiff’s company. Article 350/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations includes the provision that the person who acquires the leased property may request eviction due to housing or workplace needs for himself, his spouse, his descendants, his descendants or other persons he is obliged to look after by law.

  According to the provisions of the law and the established jurisprudence of our Department, a real person cannot request evacuation due to the needs of the company. The plaintiff is a real person, it belongs to him. Since the company requested evacuation based on its needs, the court should have decided to reject the case, but it is not correct to accept the case and decide to evacuate the rented property with written justification. The verdict must therefore be overturned.

Additionally, in cases of eviction due to necessity, termination notice periods must also be observed. Otherwise, the case will be rejected in terms of time. As stated by the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals In Its Merits No. 2017/1367 and Decision No. 2017/1784, Dated 22.02.2017;

350/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. According to the provision of the article, evacuation cases to be filed based on the claim of need must be filed at the end of the term in fixed-term contracts, and within one month starting from the date to be determined by complying with the periods stipulated for termination notice in Article 328 of this law, in indefinite-term contracts. In accordance with Article 353 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, if the lessor has notified the tenant in writing that he will file a lawsuit before or at the latest within the stipulated time for filing the lawsuit, the lawsuit can be filed until the end of an extended lease year following the notification. The deadline for filing a lawsuit is related to public order and must be automatically taken into consideration by the court, even if the defendant does not put it forward.

According to the regulation in Article 328 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098; In indefinite-term lease agreements, either party may terminate the agreement by complying with the legal termination periods and termination notice periods, unless a longer termination notice period or another termination period has been agreed. If the termination period or notice period specified in the contract or law is not complied with, the notification shall be valid for the next termination period.

As for our case; There is no dispute that there is an indefinite verbal lease agreement dated 28.04.2011, which is the basis for the case. The plaintiff notified the defendant party that the contract would not be renewed and terminated, with a notary notice dated 13/03/2014, drawn on 07/03/2014. In this case, in accordance with Article 328/1-2 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the termination notice for the contract that has become indefinite must be drawn and notified 3 months in advance compared to the 6-month period, and the lawsuit must be filed at the end of the 6-month period. Although the notice for termination was notified by the plaintiff on 13.03.2014 for the six-month period starting on 28/10/2013, the lawsuit is not within the legal period since it was filed on 19/06/2014. In this case, while the court should decide to reject the case in terms of time, it is not correct to examine the merits of the case with the written justification.

The verdict must therefore be overturned.

Another point that should be emphasized is that in Turkish law, the right to file an eviction lawsuit is given to the new owner only on the condition that he uses the leased property as it is. The new owner cannot file a lawsuit for eviction due to necessity based on reconstruction or zoning reasons. Supreme Court of Appeals 6th Civil Chamber, In Its Decision Dated 20.04.2016, Merits No: 2015/9594 and Decision No: 2016/3228;

It should be noted right away that in need-based eviction cases, it is essential that the rented property be used as it is or with simple renovations when needed. From the plaintiff’s statements in the petition, it is understood that the case is based on the reason for reconstruction, construction and major repairs regulated in Article 350/1-2 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No. 6570, Article 7/ç). In order to file a lawsuit for construction, construction and major repairs, it is necessary to wait for the end of the contract period. Article 350/2 of the Turkish Code of Obligations does not grant the new owner the right to file an eviction lawsuit due to construction, construction or major repairs. The said article gave the new owner the right to sue only for the need to use the leased property as it is. However, since the plaintiff stated that he would carry out surveying, restoration and major repairs on the leased property, it is not possible for the case based on the claim of need to be heard. In this case, while it should be decided to reject the case, it is not correct to make a written decision.

The verdict must therefore be overturned.

As a result, eviction lawsuits due to necessity in terms of rental agreements can only be filed based on two reasons. The first of these is the case of filing an eviction lawsuit against the lessor and his relatives listed in the law due to housing and workplace needs and reconstruction and zoning. The second reason is that the new owner files an eviction lawsuit based solely on necessity. It should be noted that real persons can only file an eviction lawsuit for the needs of their relatives listed in the law. In other words, a real person cannot request the evacuation of the immovable property owned by a legal entity based on the need. In addition, the need that constitutes the subject of the eviction case must be real, sincere and mandatory.

REFERENCE

Supreme Court of Appeals 6th Civil Chamber, Dated 09.05.2011, Merits No: 2010/14205 and Decision No: 2011/6059.

Supreme Court of Appeals 6th Civil Chamber, In Its Decision Dated 22.10.2015, Merits No: 2015/8603 and Decision No: 2015/8905.

3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals In Its Merits No. 2017/1367 and Decision No. 2017/1784, Dated 22.02.2017.

Supreme Court of Appeals 6th Civil Chamber, In Its Decision Dated 20.04.2016, Merits No: 2015/9594 and Decision No: 2016/3228.

Turkish Code of Obligations and Related Legislation.