6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation – Decision : 2011/8048
In the execution proceeding dated 12.08.2010 initiated by the plaintiff’s attorney against the debtor, it was based on the lease agreement dated 05.08.2006 for one year and the collection of 25.764 TL receivable was requested as the accumulated rent debt between 05.09.2006-05.08.2010. The defendant debtor objected to the debt in the objection petition submitted in due time, stating that the valid lease agreement between the parties was dated 05.09.2006, accordingly, the rent money was deposited into the bank account over 200 TL per month, and submitted the lease agreement dated 05.09.2006 with a starting date of 05.09.2006 and a monthly rent of 150 TL. The court decided to dismiss the lawsuit due to the existence of another lease agreement dated 05.09.2006, the signature of which was not explicitly denied by the creditor, since the settlement of the dispute requires judgement.
In the enforcement proceeding, the creditor relied on the lease agreement between the parties dated 05.08.2006 for a period of one year and demanded the payment of the rent over the price stated in the follow-up request. The debtor, on the other hand, did not object to his signature in the lease agreement on which the enforcement proceeding was based and claimed that there was another valid lease agreement between the parties and that the rents were paid in accordance with the aforementioned agreement. Pursuant to Article 269/2 of the EBL, if the debtor does not explicitly and unequivocally reject the lease agreement and his signature, if any, in the agreement, he is deemed to have accepted the agreement. In the face of the regulation of the aforementioned article, the contract covering the same period but containing different rental prices cannot be taken into consideration. The debtor who does not deny his signature in the lease agreement on which the proceeding is based cannot assert in the enforcement court that more than one lease agreement has been signed for whatever purpose. Since the defendant debtor cannot prove that he paid the debt subject to the proceeding according to the lease agreement whose signature is not denied with one of the documents specified in Article 269/c of the EBL, it is not correct to decide to reject the request with the written justification while it is necessary to decide to accept the request.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking