T.C.
JUDGMENT
6TH CIVIL CHAMBER
E. 2008/11
K. 2008/2784
T. 11.3.2008
– LEASE AGREEMENT (Since the signature will bind the lessee, the objection that the dates in the document containing the eviction commitment were filled in later cannot be relied upon)
– COMMITMENT TO EVACUATE (The Tenant Gave While Living in the Leased Property – Since the Signature on the Lease Agreement will bind the Signatory Tenant, the Objection That the Dates in the Document Containing the Commitment to Evacuate are Filled in Later cannot be Ignored)
– OBLIGATION TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE EVACUATION COMMITMENT ( Since the signature on the Lease Agreement will bind the Signatory Tenant, the objection that the dates in the document containing the Evacuation Commitment were filled in later cannot be ignored )
– FILLING IN THE DATES LATER (Since the signature on the Lease Agreement will bind the tenant, the objection that the dates in the document containing the Eviction Commitment were filled in later cannot be considered)
6570/m.7/a
SUMMARY : Although the tenant defended that (the letter of undertaking was taken during the execution of the lease agreement and the date of execution was filled in later); in the letter of undertaking, whose signature was not denied, he accepted that he was living in the apartment belonging to the plaintiff “which is still under the tenancy and occupation” and that he gave the eviction commitment while he was living in the leased property. On the other hand, since the signature will bind the signatory tenant, the objection that the dates in this document containing the eviction commitment are filled in later cannot be relied upon. Even if it is accepted that the date of issuance in the letter of undertaking is left blank and given to the plaintiff, the defendant tenant must bear the consequences of such behaviour. It should be decided to evacuate the leased property.
CASE : The decision on the cancellation of the objection-eviction case given by the local court, dated and numbered above, has been appealed by the plaintiff in due time, and all the papers in the file have been read and discussed and considered:
DECISION : The dispute is about the cancellation of the objection to the enforcement proceeding for the evacuation of the leased property due to the evacuation commitment and the evacuation of the leased property. The court decided to dismiss the lawsuit and the judgement was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
In the statement of claim, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that the defendant was a tenant in the leased property with a lease agreement dated 1.9.2003 and undertook to evacuate the leased property on 30.8.2005 with the eviction commitment given on 15.10.2003. 2005, and objected to the execution proceeding made against him upon his failure to evacuate in due time by claiming that the evacuation commitment was invalid since it was given at the time of signing the lease agreement, whereas the dates of the agreement and the commitment are clear, the commitment letter was given after the lease agreement and while living in the leased property, and that the defendant could not submit a document confirming his objection, and requested the cancellation of the objection and the evacuation of the defendant from the leased property. The defendant’s attorney stated that the lease agreement was prepared by the real estate agent, that the defendant had to sign the eviction commitment just to make a lease agreement upon the stipulation of the lessor and the real estate agent, that the agreement and the commitment letter were written with the same typewriter, and that the date of issuance in the commitment letter was added later, He defended the dismissal of the lawsuit by stating that the letter of undertaking was invalid since it was given together with the lease agreement and against the free will of the defendant, and moreover, the plaintiff consented to the continuation of the lease agreement by taking the new term rent money without reservation.
According to Article 7/a of the Law No. 6570 on Real Estate Leases and the established case law, in order for an eviction decision to be made in the cases filed due to the eviction commitment letter, the commitment letter must be given with free will after the conclusion of the contract, while living in the leased property.
It is not possible to make an eviction decision based on the commitment that does not have these features.
As for our case; there is no dispute between the parties regarding the one-year lease agreement dated 1.9.2003, which is relied upon in the enforcement proceedings and the lawsuit and taken as the basis for the judgement. The plaintiff filed an enforcement proceeding against the defendant for the evacuation of the leased property on 22.9.2005 with the file numbered 2005 / 5397 of Bakırköy 2nd Execution Directorate on 22.9.2005 based on the evacuation undertaking dated 15.10.2003 and 30.8.2005. The defendant, who objected to the enforcement proceeding within the legal period, claimed that the eviction undertaking was invalid since it was taken at the beginning of the contract, and reiterated this objection during the trial. Although the defendant defended that the eviction undertaking was taken during the preparation of the lease agreement and the date of issuance was filled in later, in the undertaking whose signature was not denied, the defendant admitted that he was living in the apartment belonging to the plaintiff “which is still under the tenancy and occupation” and that he gave the eviction undertaking while he was living in the leased property. On the other hand, since the signature will bind the signatory tenant, the objection that the dates in this document containing the eviction commitment are filled in later cannot be relied upon. Even if it is accepted that the date of issuance in the letter of undertaking is left blank and given to the plaintiff, the defendant tenant must bear the consequences of such behaviour. The fact that the date of issue is filled in later has no effect on the result. Since the follow-up was made in due time and the lawsuit was filed, the decision should be reversed as it was not deemed correct to establish a written judgement while it should be decided to evacuate the leased property by accepting that the eviction commitment given while sitting in the leased property with free will is valid.
CONCLUSION : For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 11.03.2008 to accept the appeal objections and to VACATE the judgement in accordance with Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to refund the prepaid appeal fee to the appellant, if requested.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking